Have the new Star Treks lost the progressive edge?

[Oorang]

Star Trek plays a special role in our society. It is the dominant depiction of the future in the public mind. The universe Star Trek created is, vaguely, where we think we're headed as a species and has been for almost 50 years now.

That is a big responsibility. One of the important aspects of that responsibility is to paint a vision of the future that includes everybody. Right now, there is no place in that future for gay people. Star Trek XIII needs to fix that. The Star Trek of the 1960s, were it around today, would have done so already a long time ago. They were well ahead of the public in, for example, including women and minorities in positions of power. The list of "firsts" for Star Trek on the social progress spectrum is mind boggling. The first interracial kiss, the first female captain, the first black officer... Right while kids were practicing hiding under their desks at school, who did Star Trek bring in? A Russian officer. That is part of what has made the show so important to society- it has lived up to its responsibility to not just depict the future, but to pull us towards a better future. Right now, Star Trek is falling down on that responsibility.

Now, to be clear, that doesn't mean I want Star Trek XIII to be "about" homosexuality. They didn't make TOS "about" Uhura being black. That's half the point of it- in the Star Trek future nobody cares that she's black. Same deal with a gay character. All they need to do is when a male character makes an offhand reference to their significant other, it's "John" instead of "Jane" and they're done.

Likewise, Star Trek has traditionally highlighted diplomacy, difficult, nuanced, moral dilemmas, careful consideration of options, etc. But the new Star Treks are falling into the all too familiar pattern of shoot-first-think-later action with clear cut bad guys and good guys and little room for negotiation.

As entertaining as the new movies have been, I don't get the sense that they totally get what Star Trek is about. In my view, they have significant work to do in order to deserve to carry the name. If they'd rather just make action movies with no deeper purpose, that's fine, but they should just start up their own franchise instead of pretending it is Star Trek.

 

[Kelthaz]

Star Trek continually ignoring homosexuality over the years has been quite frustrating. We all remember the cringe worthy attempt to address the issue without actually offending anyone in "The Outcast" or the evil lesbian Kira in the mirror universe.

Yes, Star Trek should include a gay character. Preferably male.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

The first interracial kiss...

Star Trek didn't have the 'first interracial kiss'. That's been debunked many times. There were 'interracial kisses' going on in Trek and other shows before that Kirk/Uhura kiss...(primarily between white men and Asian women). It's just that America loves to focus on 'race' whenever a black person is involved (i.e. deal the race card).

And in regards to the statement that 'no one cared that Uhura was black:'

Sisko - a man in the 24th century - didn't exactly ignore his own blackness when he was recalling the black experience in the 1960s when his girlfriend wanted him to take part in a holosuite program.

Of course, that was one of the things that was interesting about DS9: It challenged that utopia/all humans evolved idea...something I wouldn't mind the Abramsverse doing, although it does seem like it wants to be 'progressively minded' yet edgy at the same time...or it tries to be one or the other.

 

[Franklin]

The problem is that "Star Trek" was never really that important to society as said in the OP to begin with. It was never particularly controversial. When push came to shove with cautious network executives (censors) all the way back to TOS, "Star Trek" was pushed far more than it ever shoved back. Executives largely saw Trek as a family show, and didn't want that kind of material on the show. Even the kiss between Nichols and Shatner was going to be filmed without it really being shown, but Nichols says Shatner kept deliberately blowing the takes.

Its inherent lack of real edginess and true progressivity may be one reason why a gay character never appeared on any of the shows. Trek's first purpose was not to be ground-breaking.

But by the mid-1980s, when gay characters (including some recurring characters) were appearing without real controversy on other popular TV shows, there was no real excuse for Trek (being seen as progressive) not doing it. But no one took a stand. I do recall Braga saying in an interview that looking back on it, it is regretful that none of the Trek shows in the 1980s and 1990s had a gay character. A passing reference was made to two minor characters being gay in a script for a TNG episode written by David Gerrold, but I believe the lines were taken out, and the episode never aired anyway for other reasons.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

The problem is that "Star Trek" was never really that important to society as said in the OP to begin with. It was never particularly controversial. When push came to shove with cautious network executives (censors) all the way back to TOS, "Star Trek" was pushed far more than it ever shoved back. Executives largely saw Trek as a family show, and didn't want that kind of material on the show. Even the kiss between Nichols and Shatner was going to be filmed without it really being shown, but Nichols says Shatner kept deliberately blowing the takes.

It was never particularly controversial...yet, there was a problem when a non-black individual is kissed by a black individual. And, said kiss was going to be filmed without it being shown. Yet, we've seen other kisses - white male/Asian female - filmed during that time with no problem.

Sounds like controversy to me. Especially since black individuals were seen as a different 'race' where white men and Asian women weren't....

 

[Sindatur]

Yea, Star Trek, wasn't first in many of the things it gets credit for, though, it was amongst several other shows doing those things early on, and paving the way towards acceptance of them. (Sammy Davis Jr kissing Nancy Sinatra on a Variety show was actually the First Black/White Kiss on American Television and a British Soap did it a bit earlier, and of course, if you broaden Inter-racial to include other peoples of color than Black, then yea, there's lots of Asian/White kisses, including Kirk and France Nguyen, and of course Lucy and Ricky kissed several times without any objection)

It is a shame that Star Trek didn't lead the way in the 80s and 90s Spinoffs with a Gay character. Today, it would no longer be "groundbreaking", because so many other shows have already been there, but, yea, certainly, it's time for the Franchise to include a Gay Character (Done with respect, of course)

 

[The Doctor]

Since Star Trek Into Darkness included a full-throated denouncement of drone strikes and the lack of due process, I think it's fair to say that Abrams' two films are at least as 'progressive' as Trek that has come before them.

 

[Franklin]

The problem is that "Star Trek" was never really that important to society as said in the OP to begin with. It was never particularly controversial. When push came to shove with cautious network executives (censors) all the way back to TOS, "Star Trek" was pushed far more than it ever shoved back. Executives largely saw Trek as a family show, and didn't want that kind of material on the show. Even the kiss between Nichols and Shatner was going to be filmed without it really being shown, but Nichols says Shatner kept deliberately blowing the takes.

It was never particularly controversial...yet, there was a problem when a non-black individual is kissed by a black individual. And, said kiss was going to be filmed without it being shown. Yet, we've seen other kisses - white male/Asian female - filmed during that time with no problem.

Sounds like controversy to me. Especially since black individuals were seen as a different 'race' where white men and Asian women weren't....

Well, it wasn't about races kissing, it was about "those two" races kissing. That said, the way it was shot was a cop out. In the episode, compare how Spock and Chapel are going at it is shot to the shot of Kirk and Uhura finally kissing. The way it's framed, one can't even tell if they really touched lips. It certainly wasn't shot like any other kiss Kirk gave to a woman in the series. He'd plant one on them and the camera would linger or even zoom in. This one was cautious. Timid, even. Sure, they were being coerced, but so were Spock and Chapel, and we saw them full on lips to lips for several seconds. It could've been more daring, but the producers played it safer.

 

[The Wormhole]

Star Trek's "progressive edge" is overstated anyway. So in answer to the OP's question, I'd say no, but only because it can't lose what it never had.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

The problem is that "Star Trek" was never really that important to society as said in the OP to begin with. It was never particularly controversial. When push came to shove with cautious network executives (censors) all the way back to TOS, "Star Trek" was pushed far more than it ever shoved back. Executives largely saw Trek as a family show, and didn't want that kind of material on the show. Even the kiss between Nichols and Shatner was going to be filmed without it really being shown, but Nichols says Shatner kept deliberately blowing the takes.

It was never particularly controversial...yet, there was a problem when a non-black individual is kissed by a black individual. And, said kiss was going to be filmed without it being shown. Yet, we've seen other kisses - white male/Asian female - filmed during that time with no problem.

Sounds like controversy to me. Especially since black individuals were seen as a different 'race' where white men and Asian women weren't....

Well, it wasn't about races kissing, it was about "those two" races kissing. That said, the way it was shot was a cop out. In the episode, compare how Spock and Chapel are going at it is shot to the shot of Kirk and Uhura finally kissing. The way it's framed, one can't even tell if they really touched lips. It certainly wasn't shot like any other kiss Kirk gave to a woman in the series. He'd plant one on them and the camera would linger or even zoom in. This one was cautious. Timid, even. Sure, they were being coerced, but so were Spock and Chapel, and we saw them full on lips to lips for several seconds. It could've been more daring, but the producers played it safer.

Yeah, and that's why there's controversy...because a big deal was made because those two 'races' were kissing as if they're two different species. (It's kind of sickening that black people were - are still are - profiled like that in the media). Will Smith and the production of Hitch comes to mind. And even in that film a white male/Asian female relationship doesn't receive controversy

I recall a scene in the 1960s I Spy when a Japanese girl, an agent and friend of Bill Cosby's Alexander Scott, was killed. I expected Scott to at least kiss the girl on the forehead since it was hinted and he and her 'had a thing.' Yet, due to the era....Cosby couldn't even kiss an Asian girl. (That was a white male privilege!)

Progress is a funny thing. Especially since 'progress' is viewed differently by people of different races. For example, when Obama was put into office, there were white people who figured that blacks didn't have anything to complain about, that racism was suddenly abolished...and that we were in a 'post-racial' era.

(Like that supposed 'first interracial kiss,' it figures that there are only 'two' races in America: black and white. And, I would even argue certain progress is viewed primarily through the lens of the white majority...and not so much others).

Star Trek's "progressive edge" is overstated anyway. So in answer to the OP's question, I'd say no, but only because it can't lose what it never had.

I can agree with this.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Star Trek is--and has always been--progressive in the way most democrats are progressive. It sticks it toe in the liberal water every now and then but that's usually because it's nudged along. It mostly keeps to the safe beach.

That said, it has played a small part in highlighting certain social issues. It's been a bit more extreme with pushing its extreme economic agenda, promising a pot of self-help books at the end of the rainbow.

However, it's difficult to see any real kind of edge when Xanadu is populated almost exclusively by white heterosexual men.

 

[mos6507]

Since Star Trek Into Darkness included a full-throated denouncement of drone strikes and the lack of due process, I think it's fair to say that Abrams' two films are at least as 'progressive' as Trek that has come before them.

Where do you factor in the voyeuristic fanservice of Alice Eve's underwear in all this progressivism?

 

[Sindatur]

Since Star Trek Into Darkness included a full-throated denouncement of drone strikes and the lack of due process, I think it's fair to say that Abrams' two films are at least as 'progressive' as Trek that has come before them.

Where do you factor in the voyeuristic fanservice of Alice Eve's underwear in all this progressivism?

Same place as Shahna's Outift in The Gamesters of Triskelion or Droxine's Outfit in The Cloud Minders?

 

[Amaris]

Since Star Trek Into Darkness included a full-throated denouncement of drone strikes and the lack of due process, I think it's fair to say that Abrams' two films are at least as 'progressive' as Trek that has come before them.

Where do you factor in the voyeuristic fanservice of Alice Eve's underwear in all this progressivism?

She's a strong, independent woman who saw Kirk peeking and told him to turn back around. See, she's not an object to be viewed as if on display. She's also a highly intelligent weapons officer.

Why are you so focused on her underwear?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Since Star Trek Into Darkness included a full-throated denouncement of drone strikes and the lack of due process, I think it's fair to say that Abrams' two films are at least as 'progressive' as Trek that has come before them.

Where do you factor in the voyeuristic fanservice of Alice Eve's underwear in all this progressivism?

Same place as Shahna's Outift in The Gamesters of Triskelion or Droxine's Outfit in The Cloud Minders?

Or Ilia's short robe in TMP.

 

[Franklin]

Where do you factor in the voyeuristic fanservice of Alice Eve's underwear in all this progressivism?

Same place as Shahna's Outift in The Gamesters of Triskelion or Droxine's Outfit in The Cloud Minders?

Or Ilia's short robe in TMP.

-- Soft focus close-ups of women in TOS.
-- Mini-skirts.
-- Mirror universe uniforms.
-- Transporter decontamination scenes in ENT, especially the one with Trip and T Pol in the premier episode, nonetheless.
-- Catsuits.

I think we're doing a pretty good job of factoring in the voyeuristic fanservice of Alice Eve's underwear among all the progressivism, so far.

On topic, I agree with Wormhole. Trek can't lose what it never really had. The Alice Eve example shows just how silly it is to hold Abrams' Trek or anyone else's future Trek to an absurd standard. Could they do away with the fanservice? Yes. But TOS, if it were truly progressive, wouldn't have relied on it at all, and TNG and the others certainly could've done away with it by then. If there is a gay character in the next Trek movie or in some form of it to follow, it will not be reestablishing anything in Trek. It may just be catching Trek up to other forms of entertainment that have had characters of different sexual preferences for some time, now.

 

[T'Girl]

Since Star Trek Into Darkness included a full-throated denouncement of drone strikes ...

Where? Are you referring the intended torpedo attack?

She's also a highly intelligent weapons officer.

Who was clueless that the weapons she brought aboard contain sleeping people and not (you know) a warhead.

Carol Marcus in the alternate universe is hardly "intelligent."

 

[Amaris]

Since Star Trek Into Darkness included a full-throated denouncement of drone strikes ...

Where? Are you referring the torpedoes?

She's also a highly intelligent weapons officer.

Who was clueless that the weapons she brought aboard contain sleeping people and not (you know) a warhead.

Carol Marcus in the alternate universe is hardly "intelligent."

Oh, you mean the same person who figured out how to deactivate the weapons themselves? Oh, wait, that was Star Trek Into Darkness. You must be referring to another movie, like, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, where linguistics and communications officer Uhura doesn't know how to speak Klingon.

 

[Franklin]

Since Star Trek Into Darkness included a full-throated denouncement of drone strikes ...

Where? Are you referring the torpedoes?

She's also a highly intelligent weapons officer.

Who was clueless that the weapons she brought aboard contain sleeping people and not (you know) a warhead.

Carol Marcus in the alternate universe is hardly "intelligent."

If I remember correctly, they were forbidden to scan the torpedoes. That's what upset Scotty. Who would think they held anything other than a warhead -- especially people?

As far as a denouncement of drones strikes goes, Kirk decided not to use them and went after Khan the "old fashioned" way to face trial and get justice. Didn't he?

 

[Franklin]

Since Star Trek Into Darkness included a full-throated denouncement of drone strikes ...

Where? Are you referring the torpedoes?

She's also a highly intelligent weapons officer.

Who was clueless that the weapons she brought aboard contain sleeping people and not (you know) a warhead.

Carol Marcus in the alternate universe is hardly "intelligent."

Oh, you mean the same person who figured out how to deactivate the weapons themselves? Oh, wait, that was Star Trek Into Darkness. You must be referring to another movie, like, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, where linguistics and communications officer Uhura doesn't know how to speak Klingon.

Or when Chekov, who's been to that area before, doesn't realize there's an entire planet missing from the Ceti Alpha system.