|
Astroman posted:Yeah, as much as Roddenberry didn't think it through, ideas like "no money" and transubstantiation of matter in the form of free and unlimited replication was pretty I loved TNG growing up, but I don't want to turn it into something it wasn't. The cast fell in line with a well established template of multiculturalism at the time. Even then the stereotypes were a little uncomfortable: the black bouncer, the lesbian security chief, the female empathy officer. And the replicator and holodeck were the wet dream of the 80's materialist, exclusive perks available to the elite crew of the Starship Enterprise. I remember one time they did encounter a Utopian society, but they were mean to Wesley Crusher, and therefore an evil, pitiable society. Also - and this is off subject - my brother and I had never seen a serial drama before. After they turned Picard into a Borg in a cliffhanger episode, my brother and I waited all week to see what happens. And then - WHAT THE gently caress?? Reruns? We gotta wait FOUR MONTHS?
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 22:15
|
|
for the 80s.
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:22 |
|
|
Warm und Fuzzy posted:I remember one time they did encounter a Utopian society, but they were mean to Wesley Crusher, and therefore an evil, pitiable society. Uhh if you're talking about the episode I think you're talking about....didn't Wesley basically do something as serious as walking on some loving stupid rear end flowers by accident during a game of catch or some equally bullshit infraction and these "enlightened people" are like "punishment is death". "but they were mean to Wesley Crusher" just doesn't quite do justice to what is going on in the episode.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
Warm und Fuzzy posted:Even then the stereotypes were a little uncomfortable: the black bouncer, the lesbian security chief, the female empathy officer. um
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 22:42
|
|
|
Honestly the only stereotypes that were really egregious was Deanna Troi's role which yes is actually a horrendously stupid stereotype and the aborted attempt at making the Ferengi into villains which was basically written using racist caricatures of Jews. EDIT: Which isn't to say that a lot of the issues had to do with bad writing. The Ferengi moved from racist caricature to well rounded in DS9 due to competent writing. MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Dec 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 22:51
|
|
|
Warm und Fuzzy posted:I loved TNG growing up, but I don't want to turn it into something it wasn't. The cast fell in line with a well established template of multiculturalism at the time. Even then the stereotypes were a little uncomfortable: the black bouncer, the lesbian security chief, the female empathy officer. At the time, multiculturalism was widely reviled and an easy boogeyman to be knocked down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 23:05
|
|
|
I was a little hyperbolic, but many of the show's casting choices weren't progressive. I think a lot of television in the eighties was well-intention-ed. Certainly children's television was. Star Trek falls in that bucket. But a lot of the credit goes to the Baby Boomers growing up in civil rights and breaking into the industry for the first time. Look back, and wasn't diversity a staple of TV back then? TNG is a reflection of what was going on at the time, and not a revolution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 02:02
|
|
|
At the recent Fathom Events screening of "The Measure of a Man" and "Q Who," one of the people in the interviews said "The original series had a Russian on the bridge, and a black woman, and an Asian" and I thought to myself, "Unlike the Next Generation" still like TNG best
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Star Trek was sexist but still for the time amazingly sexually progressive. I mean, for all they played with the women as targets for kirk and emotional creatures they never did something like "a woman archaeologist??" *double-take, eyes pop out, slide whistle* or showed that women serving alongside men was anything out of the ordinary (well, mostly). Uhura being a proficient lieutenant and senior officer in the service who happened to be a woman was mindblowing to the 60's audience. Even if in the scripts she pretty much just opened hailing frequencies. A huge amount of that can be blamed on Gene Roddenberry himself. He had no problem with consciously exploiting and objectifying women both personally and professionally. EDIT: Woooah, I didn't notice the Number One part when I first replied. First, it wasn't the studio - it was the network, NBC; Desilu was okay with it. Second, NBC didn't make Gene get rid of Number One as a role, they said they didn't want his sub-par extra-marital girlfriend cast in that role. Gene then spun it around and said "hey baby I'm sorry but they said no chicks in command" and just dropped the character while casting the network in a bad light. Then later he tried hoking up a role for Majel as Nurse Chapel and put her in a blonde wig. NBC saw through it basically immediately but Chapel was a sparse role anyway so whatever. Farmer Crack-Ass fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Dec 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 03:27
|
|
|
Warm und Fuzzy posted:I loved TNG growing up, but I don't want to turn it into something it wasn't. The cast fell in line with a well established template of multiculturalism at the time. Even then the stereotypes were a little uncomfortable: the black bouncer, the lesbian security chief, the female empathy officer. I think this statement says a lot more about you than it does the intentions of the people doing TNG...
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 04:12
|
|
|
By the time TNG rolled around the reputation of the franchise was working against the creativity that should have been brought to bear on the material. After 20-some odd years it was a given that Star Trek was Progressive Television which meant they could get lazy. It was progressive because it was Star Trek instead of vice-versa. It most definitely played it safer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 04:46
|
|
|
Apparently details about the 9 minute sneak peak before the Hobbit are starting to come out. http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=97913 Coming Soon posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 04:59
|
|
|
Twitter reaction mentions the score borrows from Horner's ST2 score, but that may just be another red herring.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
Monkeyseesaw posted:By the time TNG rolled around the reputation of the franchise was working against the creativity that should have been brought to bear on the material. After 20-some odd years it was a given that Star Trek was Progressive Television which meant they could get lazy. It was progressive because it was Star Trek instead of vice-versa. It most definitely played it safer. Yeah, I'll grant it probably wasn't AS progressive as TOS for it's time, but I just bristle at people in both Trek threads throwing around "well actually it was pretty racist and horrible." that's a little  to me.Also that scene with Cumberbatch saying he can help cure a sick kid screams Gary Mitchell to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 05:22
|
|
|
TNG was just so... safe. Even at being progressive it was playing it safe at being progressive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 06:04
|
|
|
TNG's progressivism wasn't about racial stuff, it was more about ideas of understanding and emotions. Those concepts weren't as well thought out and so they make the show look more ridiculous when looked at in a critical way. If anything, the choice of actors was more progressive because they weren't going down a laundry list of ethnicities, the list was more archetypes, La Forge's disability being the only real specific check off. It did fall into the trap of white leading man, but that was pretty much still unavoidable in 1987. They did make him European instead of American.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 06:18
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:TNG's progressivism wasn't about racial stuff, it was more about ideas of understanding and emotions. Those concepts weren't as well thought out and so they make the show look more ridiculous when looked at in a critical way. If anything, the choice of actors was more progressive because they weren't going down a laundry list of ethnicities, the list was more archetypes, La Forge's disability being the only real specific check off. It did fall into the trap of white leading man, but that was pretty much still unavoidable in 1987. They did make him European instead of American. And to be fair, people were also making a stink about him being a) middle-aged, and b) bald. People literally wanted Kirk 2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 06:20
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:If Star Trek 2013 is bringing back a canon villain, is there any reason to restrict the candidates to TOS? Star Trek doesn't really have any "canon villains." These aren't super hero movies. Klingons or Romulans would be the closest things, I guess, but those are belligerent races which is different than a "canon villain." I remember reading at some point where it was stated pretty clearly that the villain for this movie would be a character from the first season of TOS. Everyone seemed to assume Khan because of this. Then I read something else that came out later that said it would be a lesser known bad guy from Season 1 -- probably because they decided doing Khan again would be a hack move. Did anyone else read this stuff or am I the only one? I'd try to dig up the links but it's been a long time so I wouldn't know where to begin other than the wikipedia entry for the new movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 06:25
|
|
|
In terms of progressiveness of Star Trek in TNG and after... well, you just have to look at the franchise's treatment of LGBT issues, for example. What treatment? Yeah. Playing it safe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 06:27
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:In terms of progressiveness of Star Trek in TNG and after... well, you just have to look at the franchise's treatment of LGBT issues, for example. DS9 offended a lot of people when they had two girls kiss. It wasn't quite gay because one was the other's wife in a past male wife but still people were pissed they showed that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 06:30
|
|
|
AFAIK, there has never been a single canon LGBT character in Star Trek. Just a few who have appeared or been outed as such in non-canon comics, novels, etc. (the guy who gets assimilated by the Borg in the hull scene in First Contact is one, I think). That really speaks for itself, and possibly for how Braga/Berman handled the franchise, if certain people are to be believed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 07:20
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:Twitter reaction mentions the score borrows from Horner's ST2 score, but that may just be another red herring. That sounds pretty rad to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 07:42
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:AFAIK, there has never been a single canon LGBT character in Star Trek. Just a few who have appeared or been outed as such in non-canon comics, novels, etc. (the guy who gets assimilated by the Borg in the hull scene in First Contact is one, I think). This is probably the closest they got.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 07:56
|
|
|
OrganizedEntropy posted:Apparently details about the 9 minute sneak peak before the Hobbit are starting to come out. I hope it's a "Like too much air in a balloon!" kinda line from pegg. That sounds pretty great though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 07:59
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:This is probably the closest they got. And Jonathan Frakes wanted the character from the genderless race he kissed in that episode to be played by a man, but the higher powers refused and made it be a woman.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 10:09
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:And Jonathan Frakes wanted the character from the genderless race he kissed in that episode to be played by a man, but the higher powers refused and made it be a woman. Yeah, I can't really defend that. I'm not usually one to engage with these discussions of "problematic" elements of pop culture, but now that its been mentioned the LGBT issue seems like a huge oversight for the franchise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 10:24
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:This is probably the closest they got. Riker is so sexy he can make you
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 10:29
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:Riker is so sexy he can make you He also knows the only place to poo poo on the Enterprise. Kilo147 fucked around with this message at 11:08 on Dec 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 11:05
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:And Jonathan Frakes wanted the character from the genderless race he kissed in that episode to be played by a man, but the higher powers refused and made it be a woman. Proof that Frakes is a cool cat
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 11:31
|
|
|
TNG was depicting a communist utopia before the wall came down. It sorta flew more under the radar than the progrssive treatment of race did in TOS, but it had all the potential to cause a giant shitstorm if someone had noticed and gone on a crusade. The LBGT thing....remember, up until very recently, doing that would of gotten them chucked off most stations, and there are still to this day plenty of exec's who'd pussy out at a recurring gay character. Riker kissing a dude would of been a cool moment, but it would probably of gotten everyone involved fired in a resulting shitstorm that would also prevent it actually making the air. I don't blame them for not going there, and I'm amazed they got what they did past the execs at the time. As controversial and progressive as Uhura and Chekov was in TOS, the civil rights movement was in full swing at the time, while the gay rights movement was much less mainstream in the early-mid 90s. For 20-somethings, its easy to forget that when we were kids homosexuality just wasn't talked about. Hell, DS9 got a merry old shitfest for having a lesbian kiss, even though it came several years later and featured two hot girls, which has always been the one situation throughout western history where homosexuality has been to some small degree tolerated. ENT and maybe VOY were the one's that came at the perfect time to deal with LGBT issues, and in Phlox they even had the perfect character to explore those very themes. But given ENTs complete and total lack of any sort of tact and subtlety, it's probably best that they didn't - they'd probably have an episode where Mayweather contracts space-aids in a Vulcan bathhouse or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 14:40
|
|
|
Pastamania posted:But given ENTs complete and total lack of any sort of tact and subtlety, it's probably best that they didn't - they'd probably have an episode where Mayweather contracts space-aids in a Vulcan bathhouse or something. Oh gently caress me, I'd managed to block out the part where they tackled AIDS by giving T'Pol Vulcan brain-AIDS after she was mind-raped and then she got discriminated against by all the other Vulcans. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 14:46
|
|
|
ENT had an unprotected-sex-induced m-preg episode. Was that Mayweather or someone else?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 14:51
|
|
|
That was Tucker. Please, like they'd give Mayweather a role.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 14:54
|
|
|
Cellophane S posted:Proof that Frakes is a cool cat 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 15:07
|
|
|
Star Trek has so much baggage from being invented in the 70's. Science, ethics, the current discourse, so much has moved on from then. I kind of think that a new show set in space should be made with the same mission as Star Trek originally had, but with new and more timely ideas to really challenge a modern audience. Some way of having legitimacy and not coming off as a knockoff trek would be needed, though. I think it's far more likely a suit will look at the most successful shows on TV and ask for a version of one to be set in space. Hence, I'm sure "game of thrones in space" is coming sooner or later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 15:17
|
|
|
Yonic Symbolism posted:Star Trek has so much baggage from being invented in the 70's. Science, ethics, the current discourse, so much has moved on from then. Star Trek was developed and first aired in the 60s.  The 70s are when it achieved broad popularity in syndication and proved a market for feature film development.EDIT: because someone's going to bring up Star Wars, Paramount had actually been considering doing a Trek film as early as 1974, but Gene Roddenberry was a greedy idiot who scared off the studio; Star Wars made it sufficiently imperative to force Paramount to agree to deal with him. Farmer Crack-Ass fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Dec 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 16:13
|
|
|
Yonic Symbolism posted:Star Trek has so much baggage from being invented in the 70's. Science, ethics, the current discourse, so much has moved on from then. Battlestar Galactica?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 16:18
|
|
|
I know I personally am looking forward to Breaking Bad: 2525.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 16:22
|
|
|
Re: Star Trek/LGBT issues I wrote a fairly comprehensive research paper about this topic a few years ago. It was a while ago, so excuse me if I mis-remember a few things. It basically boils down to most of the Trek people being willing to do it, from the actors to the writers, but execs and a small but vocal minority of fans being uncomfortable with it. The most famous example, of course, is David Gerrold's proposed TNG episode Blood and Fire. The script featured an openly gay couple, which made executives uncomfortable. The rumor was that it was Rick Berman who disallowed the script, though some blame it on others. It was a little heavy-handed, because it was an AIDS allegory, but nonetheless it was an acceptable script. It was eventually actually filmed by fans as part of Star Trek: New Voyages. Shortly before his death, Gene expressed an interest in interviews and at conventions in putting LGBT characters into episodes unobtrusively. Many other figures, from Kate Mulgrew to Leonard Nimoy, also expressed support for LGBT characters in Trek. A few fans were vocally unhappy about NV doing the episode, even though the vast majority were favorable towards it. It's an interesting episode; Kirk's nephew is one of the men in the couple, and the Captain is shown to be uncomfortable but ultimately accepting of him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 16:52
|
|
|
Did the mods switch the movie and show threads? I kind of wish I wasn't going home to Texas for the holidays, there's not an IMAX theatre within 100 miles 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:22 |
|
|
Kazy posted:Did the mods switch the movie and show threads? Yeah no poo poo, I'd like to see more wild speculation on the movie instead of reflections on the series!
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 18:42
|
|