OP what do you think of Discovery?
I ask this because 9/10 times someone talks about how Star Trek was “always woke”, they are usually just salty people don’t like Discovery and trying to pretend that most people who criticized it were bigots.
The other 1/10 times it’s someone who doesn’t even watch Star Trek trying to hijack the sub to push a bunch of performative culture war nonsense. However that usually involves a Tumblr post implying the Klingons were socially progressive because of how Kor treated Jadzia Dax.
how Kor treated Jadzia Dax.
For anyone who wasn’t there, this moment was revolutionary, at the time.
“What should I even say if my friend comes out to me as Transgender?!” wasn’t something everyone knew an answer to.
Having any character (Klingon or otherwise) handle learning that their friend’s gender has changed, and react in a healthy way, on screen, on prime time television, was an important positive moment for a lot of clueless future-ally scifi fans.
You cant take the actions of one Klingon and assume that describes the behavior of the species. That’s racist.
In the defense of people who constantly post the meme, they’ve never given enough thought to Star Trek to consider that some random Tumblr screen grab isn’t accurate.
I’m always stunned how many people on this subreddit come off as vocally progressive, but don’t bother actually watching the show. I guess that would take a modicum of effort.
they’ve never given enough thought to Star Trek to consider that some random Tumblr screen grab isn’t accurate.
I don’t know if it’s perfectly captioned, but I clearly remember that moment in DS9 when Dax’s old war buddy reacts to her gender and name change with a repeated big hug and corrected name…so… I’m not sure what we’re getting at here?
I get not liking Discovery, but do people really think Lower Decks, SNW, Picard are “Woke?”
Also, obviously, sci-fi is at its best when tackling politics… Isn’t that kinda the point?
“Woke” has long since lost its original meaning.
Used to mean something positive and progressive. Then it meant something that tried writing itself off as something progressive, but was simply stupid and entitled (i.e. That Batwoman series), now it’s anything a right winger hates, even if it isn’t trying to be progressive in any way.
Truth is, with NuTrek, it doesn’t have a single progressive bone in its body, and the writers don’t have the skill to pull off any sort of commentary.
Truth is, with NuTrek, it doesn’t have a single progressive bone in its body, and the writers don’t have the skill to pull off any sort of commentary.
It’s not that bad, though I don’t totally disagree.
Also… I’d argue a problem is having their hands tied. Ironically, anything that would hit really hard couldn’t be aired in this day and age. The whole franchise would probably be mothballed if they pushed the envelope as hard as TOS.
Except they’re pretending they’re hitting even harder than older Trek.
That’s honestly the worst part for me; NuTrek is nothing but generic sci-fi action slop, with a bit of unfunny dank humour sprinkled in from Lower Decks, but it’s being paraded about as if the writers are breaking epic milestones never before dared in Star Trek.
It’s woke because they’re so unhinged that basic human decency is woke now.
No, they alternated.
Sometimes they did proper scifi.
Sometimes they did politics.
I’m in it for the scifi mself.
Your assertion that any sci-fi at all isn’t political is a particularly bold one.
But it’s a fascinating thought, so I’m going on an unrequested quest:
Here’s my attempt at “let’s name a hard science fiction that isn’t making a political statement”.
Perhaps…
- “Frankenstein” is about grave robbing and biology horror and in no way an analogy for mistreatment of neurodivergent individuals.
- “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea” is about a cool submarine and not about an ultra rich man’s extreme rejection of modern societal norms bending the world of those around him.
- “The Martian” was about the cold hard science of a man surviving on Mars, and not all about humanity briefly overcoming our national rivalries to do the human thing and being one person home safely.
- “The Robot” is just about a time traveling robot, and not a sad prediction of mankind’s likelihood to erradicate ourselves leaving only our automation to remember us by.
- “Bicentenial Man” is about robotics advances and has nothing to do with marginalized people fighting to have their human rights acknowledged.
- “The Expanse” is just about how dangerous space is, and not at all about how humanity tends to break off into adversarial groups.
- “Snow piercer” is about a cool train in the cold.
Okay, now I’m not even trying anymore, lol. (Snow piercer is blatantly deeply political, no matter how much I love the cool science train.)
I’m coming up short, arguing myself out of my best ideas, so far.
Hang on, I’ve got two:
- “Around the world in 80 days” is arguably at least slightly more about globe trotting and less about putting up with a rich employer’s bullshit.
- “Journey to the Center of the Earth” is mostly about cool caves and dinosaurs?!
I should reread these two, but I don’t remember many political messages.
(Edit. I bet someone is going to point out the political messages I missed in 80 Days and Journey. Considering how political I remember 20,000 Leagues being, I wonder if I just misremember the other two…)
Sometimes they did proper scifi.
Sometimes they did politics.
Sometimes they did Space Wizards and sometimes they did Politics and sometimes they did both.
But the harder they leaned into actual Science Fiction the more they inevitably tackled the socio-economic ramifications of those technologies and discoveries. Legal Theories like The Prime Directive and social experiments like The Kobayashi Maru training exercise and the very depiction of aliens - the ultra-logical Vulcans who constantly resist their base emotional instincts, the war-loving Klingons, the xenophobic Romulans, the problem of domesticating an invasive species like the Tribbles - all convey political attitudes and ideologies.
This is inescapable. You can’t create good apolitical Sci-Fi. Presenting the idea of a futuristic society without exploring the consequences of your modernizations is cowardly and boring.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=QFspemhHmsw A Critique of Star Trek Discovery — Part 1 #RIPStarTrek
This whole essay is worth listening to, but 15:46-30:33 in particular gets at the heart of a big reason why classic Trek rocks and why nuTrek is shit.
Lower Decks remains very good. CBS has tried to pivot Star Trek from Sci-Fi to Space Adventure, and that’s been ugly. But not every series they’ve spun out took that tone.
Also Orville - particularly the latest season - has been incredible. Everything Star Trek is supposed to be.
Also Orville - particularly the latest season - has been incredible. Everything Star Trek is supposed to be.
That show surprised the hell out of me, especially because the first season has more of Seth’s typical touch, but then he drops some of the silliness and dives right into being a Trek replacement. It feels like every episode or two has some powerful commentary and things don’t always go the way you think they should because situations are more complex than simply right-or-wrong… Like old Trek.
Since when is wokism about social justice?
in a technical sense? yes.
in a practical sense? it’s superficial, generally without any actual actions to address anything about it. they will praise a company for plopping rainbows on everything ONLY during the exact days of pride month while funding Christian gay conversion camps
