Star Trek: Discovery (2017)
- Thread starter mkstewartesq
- Start date
jlee562
Sr Member
This week's episode of The Orville is actually a pretty good example of the kinds of storytelling I'd like to see. It was a very good take on gender identity and offered a variety of perspectives within the context of the narrative conflict that didn't feel ham-fisted. It also allowed the viewers to get more insight into Moclan culture. That's good space exploration sci-fi.
Hopefully Discovery can keep up.
Hopefully Discovery can keep up.
Nichelle Nichols: played Uhura, one of the first African American females on TV to be shown in a non-servant role on a mainstream show as an officer in a military organization that preached equality; was part of the first interracial kiss on TV; this was all during the civil rights era
Madge Sinclair: played the first on-screen female Captain in Star Trek in the Voyage home; given the basic equality message in Trek, one could easily assume she was not the first female Captain in Starfleet, but was representative of said equality by being portrayed onscreen as a female captain
Avery Brooks: played the first African American lead on a Star Trek show. TOS and TNG had shown African Americans in various roles and ranks including Admirals, so again, his position in-universe was not unique; however when DS9 premiered it was unusual for a African American to be the star of an ensemble cast of mixed ethnicities; at this time, most black leads were starring in "black" shows
Kate Mulgrew: played Janeway, the first female lead of a Trek show; again-- she was not unique in-universe as by then we'd seen several female captains; while there were plenty of shows with female leads in the early 90s, believe it or not, it was still unusual for a female to by the star of a show that wasn't specifically being programmed as a "women's" show, or as part of a two-hander in which she co-starred with a male
Sonequa Martin: cast as the first African American female to be the lead in a Star Trek show; there's zero evidence that her race or sex has any bearing in-universe, as with all the above examples we know such things are not a basis of judgement in the Trek universe; given we live in a time where we've regressed in terms of social acceptance, and increased the level of fandom self-righteousness, AND the fact the marketing seems to have forgotten Brooks and Mulgrew, people are collectively losing their minds.
Every single one of these castings had voices of dissent and anger, and every single time I had to wonder if those against it really understood the point of Star Trek's message. I don't even know what the above argument is about anymore. It seems like two people trying to prove to the other they can Star Trek better.
My Discovery complaint is that I see the fact that it is a prequel as causing so much trouble, and there's no indication the story needs to be set when it is. Had they just pulled a TNG and jumped ahead into the future with their shiny uniforms and production design, no one would worry about continuity or anything else.
I haven't seen a legit criticism of the show that didn't center around casting or continuity complaints.
Madge Sinclair: played the first on-screen female Captain in Star Trek in the Voyage home; given the basic equality message in Trek, one could easily assume she was not the first female Captain in Starfleet, but was representative of said equality by being portrayed onscreen as a female captain
Avery Brooks: played the first African American lead on a Star Trek show. TOS and TNG had shown African Americans in various roles and ranks including Admirals, so again, his position in-universe was not unique; however when DS9 premiered it was unusual for a African American to be the star of an ensemble cast of mixed ethnicities; at this time, most black leads were starring in "black" shows
Kate Mulgrew: played Janeway, the first female lead of a Trek show; again-- she was not unique in-universe as by then we'd seen several female captains; while there were plenty of shows with female leads in the early 90s, believe it or not, it was still unusual for a female to by the star of a show that wasn't specifically being programmed as a "women's" show, or as part of a two-hander in which she co-starred with a male
Sonequa Martin: cast as the first African American female to be the lead in a Star Trek show; there's zero evidence that her race or sex has any bearing in-universe, as with all the above examples we know such things are not a basis of judgement in the Trek universe; given we live in a time where we've regressed in terms of social acceptance, and increased the level of fandom self-righteousness, AND the fact the marketing seems to have forgotten Brooks and Mulgrew, people are collectively losing their minds.
Every single one of these castings had voices of dissent and anger, and every single time I had to wonder if those against it really understood the point of Star Trek's message. I don't even know what the above argument is about anymore. It seems like two people trying to prove to the other they can Star Trek better.
My Discovery complaint is that I see the fact that it is a prequel as causing so much trouble, and there's no indication the story needs to be set when it is. Had they just pulled a TNG and jumped ahead into the future with their shiny uniforms and production design, no one would worry about continuity or anything else.
I haven't seen a legit criticism of the show that didn't center around casting or continuity complaints.
Zombie_61
Master Member
Except for the fact that she wasn't. Hispanic actor Desi Arnaz and Caucasian actress Lucille Ball kissed on I Love Lucy long before Star Trek even premiered. And if that isn't good enough, Eurasian actress France Nuyen and Caucasian actor Robert Culp kissed in an episode of I Spy almost two years before "Plato's Stepchildren" aired. And that's not counting the three previous interracial kissing scenes on U.K. television in 1959, 1962, and 1964.
And somehow now everything I said is invalidated? Whatever. So it wasn't the first interracial kiss technically-- but it was a black woman and a white man at the height of the civil rights movement and has been cited as a significant event for decades. But again-- not my actual point.
The point was that controversy has surrounded Trek casting at pretty much every turn, so the attack on pro-political correctness and SJWs is pointless. Trek has ALWAYS been an SJW show.
The point was that controversy has surrounded Trek casting at pretty much every turn, so the attack on pro-political correctness and SJWs is pointless. Trek has ALWAYS been an SJW show.
SJW is exclusive to our time, don't EVEN equate the morality tales of the sixties on shows like Twilight Zone or Star Trek to the ham handed everything is a nail to the SJWs hammer mentality today. IF anything the SJW repels more than then ever would convince unlike the elegance of what was accomplished by those shows in the sixties. And those shows were original creations. Not hijacking some existing franchise.
Last edited:
It all comes full circle when you realize that Star Trek was originally produced by...Desilu productions. That very same Hispanic man and white woman.
Maybe some people don't write as well as they think they do?
Cephus
Master Member
The problem that a lot of these people likely had, and I agree, is that Star Trek goes looking for "diversity" on purpose. They don't just pick the best actor for the role from a diverse pool, they purposely go looking for diversity as a point of the show, like they're checking off boxes on the diversity roster. And this is a problem that a lot of shows have today, they're only trying to appeal to a certain left-leaning audience instead of just making a good show for the sake of making a good show. I don't care about the race, gender or sexual orientation of the characters in the shows I enjoy. It doesn't matter to me. In fact, I find people who do care to be reprehensible human beings. And pretty much any show that is going to hit you over the head with the diversity banner is probably one I'm not going to stick with for long. TOS did it well. Most Trek since has not.
People like to say this-- and my response is-- how do you know they didn't cast the best actor? Why do you assume they didn't? I've written stories where the race is undefined and up to casting. I'ver written ones where race was very specific because it was part of the story. Neither is right or wrong.
The "I'm not racist, I just want them to cast the best actor" is such a sham of an argument because it's making the assumption that the person chosen (generally a POC) is automatically suspect. No one EVER says "I just want them to cast the best actor" if the actor is white... well, unless it's somebody really terrible and wrong for the role. But generally speaking, you only hear this when a POC is cast in a traditionally white role.
When Chris Evans was cast as The Human Torch no one said "I just want the best actor for the role-- not this guy!" But when Michael B Jordan got the part a lot of people said that.
And OF COURSE Star Trek casts for diversity. It was the first show to do so because Roddenberry wanted to show a future that existed without racism. That was a core ideal of the Federation, so every show has rightfully followed suit.
I'm really trying not to be drawn into a political discussion-- so I'll just rephrase my thesis. Ever since The Cage, where a woman was shown as first officer and an alien co-star lookeed Chinese and was played by a Jewish actor, Star Trek has been about diversity and representation. From day one, right up until now. It's wearing its political correctness on its sleeve and showing a future where everyone is equal.
If somebody doesn't get that, and they think that casting a black female lead is automatically a stunt, they do not get what Star Trek is about.
Cephus
Master Member
Yet now, Star Trek is a horribly racist because it spends its time paying attention to race. If the Star Trek universe, and thus the Star Trek producers, wanted nothing to do with race, they wouldn't spend so much time touting their diversity. It just wouldn't matter. In a non-racist universe, race would be irrelevant. Nobody would even mention it. The fact that it keeps coming up proves that race is not irrelevant to the people making Star Trek, or a lot of people watching it. When skill is all that matters, race and gender and all the rest doesn't even get brought up.
That it does, and continually does, proves racism is still going on in Hollywood.
MrSouthpaw
Sr Member
I've not been particularly impressed or disappointed with Greens acting. She was just sort of 'there' on TWD, which does make me wonder if she has the charisma to lead a Trek cast.
Unless you agree with the casting, then you will always want what you think is the best actor in any particular role. This goes for pretty much any role/race combination. You can't just declare it an excuse for people wanting an actor of their racial preference.
I don't care that they cast a black woman. I'm fine with it. Just don't try and sell it to me as some kind of great achievement. Black women have landed lead roles before Green did it here. And I honestly believe it's disrespectful to Nichols and what she accomplished.
I can't remember how young I was when I first saw this, but it's the very episode that inspired me to work in television. Science-fiction has such an amazing gift to make us look at ourselves:
Last edited:
How so?
I'll just keep repeating myself. Star Trek invented diversity casting, and sadly, it's just as relevant now as it was in the late 60s.
Cephus
Master Member
So you're saying they only hired Nichelle Nicols and George Takei because they weren't white? It had nothing to do with their acting ability?
Bones_68
Sr Member
No, he didn't say that at all. But you're suggesting it's impossible to think that Gene hired Nichelle and George because he wanted his show to say that diversity is alive and well in the future AND they both happened to be good actors who deserved the roles. That's an odd position to take.
Last edited:
Nope.
I'm saying that in a time when the civil rights movement was at its peak, Roddenberry decided to have a multi-cultural cast (something not really done at the time) with the explicit purpose of showing a future that was harmonious. He chose the best actors for the parts.
Last edited:
Loved that's episode. I always thought it was an elegant way to deal with a relevant issue. Maybe today it would be considered heavy handed, but for the time I think it was spot on.
Right? That's what makes this episode so amazing. Not just what they did, but when they did it. Great television.
Similar threads
- Locked
