General Star Trek thread

Evade

pixelburp wrote: »

I'd generally agree with you (there's a first ), but ... in real life? These days? Maybe there's room for scepticism. I'm not even sure First Contact would rattle our cages enough anymore. For a start, you'd now have to reckon with a cohort of humanity that'd scream "FAKE NEWS" at a First Contact scenario;

Maybe, maybe not. I've been on a bit of a Yes (Prime) Minister kick lately and I really don't think anything has really changed since then.

pixelburp wrote: »

While Star Trek's general allergy towards the subject of earth religions, ignores that other likely scenario that the event would cause a huge schism among religions across the globe. Possibly causing some serious regional conflicts to properly kick-off. There'd be a lot of very nervous generals, looking for any excuse to finally give their neighbours a good licking

I haven't seen it since the early 00s but Earth Final Conflict, also by Roddenberry, is all about a first contact Earth.

corkie

Evade wrote: »

I haven't seen it since the early 00s but Earth Final Conflict, also by Roddenberry, is all about a first contact Earth.

Can remember watching some of that show, it seems to be available on youtube.

breezy1985

Space Above and Beyond

pixelburp

Evade wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not. I've been on a bit of a Yes (Prime) Minister kick lately and I really don't think anything has really changed since then.


I haven't seen it since the early 00s but Earth Final Conflict, also by Roddenberry, is all about a first contact Earth.

I don't think the psychology has changed its more that the technology has allowed it to infest otherwise normal, sane humans to an industrial level now. The internet has allowed all knowledge to be accessible to everyone - but also every dark impulse previously limited by geography or physical printing.

Never seen Roddenberry's other work, and I'd be curious whether he'd have the skill to navigate those complexities. He was a very naive writer in many ways, which was mostly a good thing but the world building kinda suffered as a result. TBH I wouldn't have said the 90s were even aware of a more global, interfaith narrative. But open to correction

AMKC

So I thought came onto my head this evening. What if ODO had of been female? Would this have been better or worse. I think Quark would have had to be Female as well then or he could have been left as male but Kira would have to be male. It certainly would have made some of the dynamics on the show different. I know he could change anytime to any shape he chooses but if he had of been Female he could have used makeup to hide the imperfect face not that I have a problem with males using makeup either but maybe st the time it would not have went down well on TV.

breezy1985

AMKC wrote: »

So I thought came onto my head this evening. What if ODO had of been female? Would this have been better or worse. I think Quark would have had to be Female as well then or he could have been left as male but Kira would have to be male. It certainly would have made some of the dynamics on the show different. I know he could change anytime to any shape he chooses but if he had of been Female he could have used makeup to hide the imperfect face not that I have a problem with males using makeup either but maybe st the time it would not have went down well on TV.

Why would Quark or Kira need to be male ?

AMKC

breezy1985 wrote: »

Why would Quark or Kira need to be male ?

For the right dynamic to work and because of the time it was made.sure I suppose if it was done now they could be both male or both Female with no problem as long as the dynamic was still there.

breezy1985

AMKC wrote: »

For the right dynamic to work and because of the time it was made.sure I suppose if it was done now they could be both male or both Female with no problem as long as the dynamic was still there.

I get that Berman would not of had a bisexual Kira but I really don't see it changing Quark much. Sure he might want to bang Odo but it wouldn't change the love hate relationship that much

Evade

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't think the psychology has changed its more that the technology has allowed it to infest otherwise normal, sane humans to an industrial level now. The internet has allowed all knowledge to be accessible to everyone - but also every dark impulse previously limited by geography or physical printing.

You have to take the good with the bad I suppose. Lockdown would have been a lot more rioty (caused by the lockdown itself, not other things) even 10 years ago.

Cookie_Monster

pixelburp wrote: »

I think so, eventually; much of the bigotry we deal with today are "only" holdovers from embedded historical contexts we simply accept as the status quo. Like, I think we sometimes forget first and foremost Star Trek is an American show with an American sense of self: it's easy to forget that in the US, there are (just about) still people alive who lived through the Jim Crow era, or the Tuskegee Syphilis Study (well, I don't know if there are survivors, given the subject). Heck the US police force has origins in slavery enforcement. Bigotry is still part of the social consciousness, and healing takes time.

Interesting topic, if you watch Grey's or Station 19 at the moment it seems horrifically over the top in terms of anti black story and the moralising in it as someone outside of the US. but I guess for the US audience it might actually hit home and be accurate...

Evade

I'd love to see a parallel timeline where Snipes and Burton had each others' careers.

https://www.cbr.com/wesley-snipes-audition-star-trek-next-generation-geordi/

breezy1985

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Interesting topic, if you watch Grey's or Station 19 at the moment it seems horrifically over the top in terms of anti black story and the moralising in it as someone outside of the US. but I guess for the US audience it might actually hit home and be accurate...

Off topic but how the hell did Grey's Anatomy spin off into a fire station show and looking at the episode reviews why are fire crews taking on sex traffickers and the like ?

pixelburp

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Interesting topic, if you watch Grey's or Station 19 at the moment it seems horrifically over the top in terms of anti black story and the moralising in it as someone outside of the US. but I guess for the US audience it might actually hit home and be accurate...

Don't watch either shows but at this stage, if the only way America can deal with its racism is through entertainment media then fair enough, it isn't produced for my approval or "enjoyment". I'd be lying if the county's foibles don't interest me, like a continent sized reality show. There doesn't seem to be political will to implement reparations or some kind of official atonement ala South Africa, so seems fitting it's only through TV and film the country can parse its past and present.

Keeping it related, Trek IMO has always been part of that public domain conversation too, even to this day, as much as some online seem to rage against this idea it was ever thus. Shítty writing is the true albatross of Trek these days, but this isn't caused by or formed from any sense of empowerment or continuing inclusivity. And again, we're only glomming onto American pop culture, it's not really for us (foreign box offices notwithstanding WRT the movies)

silverharp

pixelburp wrote: »

Keeping it related, Trek IMO has always been part of that public domain conversation too, even to this day, as much as some online seem to rage against this idea it was ever thus. Shítty writing is the true albatross of Trek these days, but this isn't caused by or formed from any sense of empowerment or continuing inclusivity. And again, we're only glomming onto American pop culture, it's not really for us (foreign box offices notwithstanding WRT the movies)

bad writing was only a symptom of a bad strategy. They didnt like Trek so they wanted to make a Game of Trek Wars, wasnt going to end well. Had there been a Roddenberry AI that had creative control, it would had rejected all this nonsense.

there is a nice little clip here from the actress behind Dr Pulaski from 1:17, its less than a minute long but sums up nicely the Roddenberry ethos with some cheeky contrast inserts from Klutzman Trek

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPGz7Lb5eBU

lapua20grain

Just finished watching lower decks, really good a lot better than I expected.

TenLeftFingers

Could just be my age but watching TOS,TNG and DS9 seemed visionary because it always seemed like humanity in space.

Now they (Disc.,Pic.,Orville) just seems more like Americans/Brits in space minus the science, philosophy and diplomacy. But as I say, maybe it was never really any different.

pixelburp

It was never any different IMO. And continues to be. "Foreign" people in the original runs amounted to Brits or Irish (or "French" by way of the RSC :rolleyes:) but American TV never really had much of an international perspective beyond 3rd world clichés or London / Paris (basically the only two EU locations according to US telly. Or rather, excuses for holidays for the producers and cast). The original series was basically about America the Melting Pot, rather than anything completely global.

It's a shame, cos that helms officer on Discovery sounds to have an African accent so clearly they're aiming for more international flavour - just forgot to give her any kind of character (still can't remember her name)

TenLeftFingers

pixelburp wrote: »

The original series was basically about America the Melting Pot, rather than anything completely global.

Nail on head i think.

Anyone want to crowdfund my idea for a spaceship crash landing in the Gaeltacht and conspiring with the locals to covertly repair the ship and save the galaxy?

breezy1985

pixelburp wrote: »

It was never any different IMO. And continues to be. "Foreign" people in the original runs amounted to Brits or Irish (or "French" by way of the RSC :rolleyes:) but American TV never really had much of an international perspective beyond 3rd world clichés or London / Paris (basically the only two EU locations according to US telly. Or rather, excuses for holidays for the producers and cast). The original series was basically about America the Melting Pot, rather than anything completely global.

It's a shame, cos that helms officer on Discovery sounds to have an African accent so clearly they're aiming for more international flavour - just forgot to give her any kind of character (still can't remember her name)

You forgot about the Russian guy on the wessel but ya you are right about Starfleet looking more like NASA with all the Americans.


Discovery doesnt do much better. You are referring to Owo who is the ops officer and she says she grey up in Africa but sounds American just like the Asian guy on the bridge and Lorca who is played by a scouser

breezy1985

silverharp wrote: »

bad writing was only a symptom of a bad strategy. They didnt like Trek so they wanted to make a Game of Trek Wars, wasnt going to end well. Had there been a Roddenberry AI that had creative control, it would had rejected all this nonsense.

there is a nice little clip here from the actress behind Dr Pulaski from 1:17, its less than a minute long but sums up nicely the Roddenberry ethos with some cheeky contrast inserts from Klutzman Trek

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPGz7Lb5eBU

All that Gene knows the ship stuff is BS in fairness as is a lot of the **** over Genes vision but one thing its gets spot on is that everyone seems to have forgotten the stun setting on phasers. No problem with drilling a mans eye or any violence but I am sick of seeing people vaporised for the sake of it when we all know stun exists.

Evade

TNG has a Somalian character in the main cast and TOS has someone most likely from a country in eastern Africa.

I think Voyager has the most American crew, aliens aside, of all the Star Treks.

Stark

I'd avoid leaning towards originalism and going with the narrative that if Roddenberry was alive and in full control, things would be perfect. There's a lot of great Trek that went against Roddenberry's vision and wishes. DS9 being the primary example. He also tried to shoot down great TNG episodes like "Family" and was thankfully overruled.

breezy1985

Evade wrote: »

TNG has a Somalian character in the main cast and TOS has someone most likely from a country in eastern Africa.

I think Voyager has the most American crew, aliens aside, of all the Star Treks.

Ya but they were "African" not African. DS9 is the only one where the characters are played by a cast from the country they are actually from

Rawr

Stark wrote: »

I'd avoid leaning towards originalism and going with the narrative that if Roddenberry was alive and in full control, things would be perfect. There's a lot of great Trek that went against Roddenberry's vision and wishes. DS9 being the primary example. He also tried to shoot down great TNG episodes like "Family" and was thankfully overruled.

Kind of feeds into my own feeling that Roddenberry was both a credit to Trek as creator and creative force behind the early years of the franchise, but also a bit of a mill-stone around the neck of where the series could potentially go. I do feel that a lot of good Trek did dare to depart from the formula that Roddenberry often enforced in early TNG before he died. As mentioned, DS9 did this well.

I myself am not as much a purest when it comes to new Trek's relation to "Roddenberry's vision". I generally don't mind as long as what is made of Trek is any good. That ultimately is my objection to the likes of Discovery, which took Trek and did something very lack-luster with it.

pixelburp

Evade wrote: »

TNG has a Somalian character in the main cast and TOS has someone most likely from a country in eastern Africa.

I think Voyager has the most American crew, aliens aside, of all the Star Treks.

Ah, no they didnt, not in any meaningful sense of it being a postcard summary of character. Scotty, for all his bad accent and cliché, was definitely not meant to be American. Ditto Chekhov. Same with Picard, again despite contrivance. Uhuru and LeForge never once suggested any regional variance in behaviour, character or just accents. Which as we saw in the show was how they differentiated that kind of thing, alongside national stereotypes.

If a character spoke with an American accent, they were an American. And as said, TOS was meant to be a representation of America as the lodestone for globalism, rather than a true Community of Nations that a Fed bridge should be.

Rawr

breezy1985 wrote: »

Ya but they were "African" not African. DS9 is the only one where the characters are played by a cast from the country they are actually from

Dr. Bashir was supposed to be English, wasn't he? I always liked the idea that DS9's Englishman and Irishman were best buddies. Sort of worked against any stereotype of animosity that an American audience might have assumed.

breezy1985

Rawr wrote: »

Dr. Bashir was supposed to be English, wasn't he? I always liked the idea that DS9's Englishman and Irishman were best buddies. Sort of worked against any stereotype of animosity that an American audience might have assumed.

Not sure it is ever said out loud but ya I think he was. The only miscasting DS9 done was having a Dub play a Kerryman, surprised Jacky Healy-Rae never brought it up in the Dail

Evade

pixelburp wrote: »

Uhuru and LeForge never once suggested any regional variance in behaviour, character or just accents.

How exactly does someone act Somalian or east African?

breezy1985

Evade wrote: »

How exactly does someone act Somalian or east African?

By getting a Somalian or East African to play them.


Same way that O'Brien is a way better depiction of an Irish person than all the Oirish on US TV

Evade

breezy1985 wrote: »

By getting a Somalian or East African to play them.

Completely disagree. This is one is the worst ideas to crop up in the last few years and defeats the point of being an actor.