Welcome to the Playpen, our space for ferrety banter and whimsical snippets of things that aren't quite long enough for articles (although they might be) but that caught your eye anyway.
On Star Trek, the biggest obstacle to a good show in the tradition of Star Trek might be that it is such an established franchise that the product is seen as something that money can be made of, which means pandering to the supposed audience, which might lead to conventional and "safe" content and avoiding any meaningful progressiveness or social commentary. On the other hand, it is made for the small screen, which might very well mean that they will get more freedom to push the envelope and make something not seen before and courageous. Courageous from the point of view of those people that always think the audiences want something safe and uncontroversial. In other words, will they just go for the nostalgia button or will they actually try and make something new?
I'm also really digging these ideas for potential debates around issues of science, religion, nihilism, and similar themes. It's definitely the sort of stuff I could see a good Trek show exploring in some really interesting ways.
Sunnyskywalker: Uhura being not just a black woman, but a black woman from Africa whose first language is Swahili
You know, I don't think I'd realized that before. Cool.
James D: Well, Julian Bashir was of course a prominent Arab crew member, and the actor who plays him is Muslim in real life, but I don't think his religious views were ever brought up one way or the other.
I don't think they were, either. And actually, it took me a long time to realize he was Arabic, but I was pretty young when the show first aired.
On which point, DS9 concluded its run in 1999, two years before the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks in 2001, and the subsequent explosion of anti-Arab racism in the US (and at least some parts of Europe). Since then, no official Trek show or movie I'm aware of has had an Arab among the main cast, when we need positive portrayals of Middle Easterners in movies and TV more than ever.
And I do think it needs to be (at least one) Arab character, because while the hateful rhetoric is couched in religious terms, the actual violence and discrimination laps over onto non-Muslim Middle Easterners, Sikhs, and the like.
@Janne: You raise an interesting point about people from former Soviet countries as the go-to mooks of our era. I confess I hadn't noticed it, personally, but I can easily believe it.
Now I think about it, it's interesting to consider the politics of who gets cast as generic bad guys in American TV and film. Specifically, I don't think there's much popular sentiment of distrust or hatred directed toward people from former Soviet-block countries (well, except for a bit of anti-Russian bias, mainly). Similarly, US film studios and networks are notoriously enamored of casting English villains (also Germans, because World War II still has a lot of cache out here), but the popular mainstream view of England and Germany still seems to be highly positive, and moderately positive, respectively.
As for the movies, iirc, Uhura is supposed to be from Kenya. Let's see if she ever gets a line or scene establishing in passing whether she's Muslim. It won't be quite as topical as if it had come up in passing in 2009 that btw, this long-beloved and heroic character is a Kenyan Muslim, but better late than never...
A glumatheists meeting with a Q like presence would be interesting, especially if a pessimistic nihilist would expect a superior being to be a cthulhu like creature in behaviour at least. So it might be an arc for the character to evolve in his nihilism, perhaps.
And of course I don't mean that in TOS Spock and McCoy can be reduced to such caricatures completely, but I'm talking more about character dynamics. Similarly, those philosophical aspects would not have to be everything about the characters, but to have the science vs. religion debate to be had by two protagonist characters neither of whom are christian, would be a fun and fresh angle.
If going by contemporary political expectations, the muslim character could well be from Chechnya or turkmenistan. I've spotted several chechens playing the role of villainous terrorists or being your basic mooks. Perhaps it is because they have a familiar name, but are sufficiently unknown to serve as base-line villains. Former Soviet ethnicities seem to be one of the main sources of cannon fodder these days.
I am now imagining the new helm and navigator being a Mexican transman and a bisexual Iraqi Muslim woman who constantly try to one-up each other using Chekov's old gag of "Hey, my people invented that thing!" Except this time they're usually both right. And then they'd go off and discover new life and new civilizations and have tense relationships with their siblings who've founded weird cults or something and feel sad about not seeing that scary blob alien until after it had already eaten a redshirt. It would be awesome.
The extent to which the original cast hasn't dated as much as you'd think is sad, though. E.g., Uhura being not just a black woman, but a black woman from Africa whose first language is Swahili and who is awesome at math and languages and rewiring subspace radios would be almost as revolutionary today as it was in the 1960s, I think. I mean, look how almost none of that comes up in the movies, even when they easily could have found reasons for it to be useful to the plot! (And every time she does language stuff, it's either minor and not useful until Kirk recognizes the significance, or useless.) I'm glad that racist networks aren't keeping her from dating Spock anymore, but she could drive the plot occasionally too. But we've only got two hours to show three hours' worth of manpain, so.
James D: I don't think Star Trek has even had a plain old homosexual.
I'm pretty sure it hasn't, (except maybe for some of the Mirror Universe characters on DS9), which is disgraceful. And yeah, I'm probably overreaching all plausibility with my wish list here, but I keep coming back to the fact that for its time, the Original 60s Trek was doing serious cutting edge stuff in terms of its social (particularly racial) politics. It was pretty radical in terms of its inclusivity.
It seems to me self-evidently obvious that any self-respecting Star Trek show in the 2010s needs to have at least one LG or B core cast member. That's a bare minimum. But if we're going to have a new Trek show, I really, really want it to go beyond the bare minimum, and by my reading of the current cultural climate, trans* and non-binary issues are the next frontier for queer politics, at least in the USA.
I think it's reasonable, given the franchise's history, to hold it to an exceptionally high standard when it comes to social issues (that is, "exceptionally high" for network television, which I put a few steps above regular "decent fucking human being" standard). I expect I'll likely be disappointed, but I'd argue that if so, then it's due to failings on the part of the production crew and/or network executives, not my standards are unreasonable.
Okay, that's probably enough *descends soapbox, unstraps Minority Warrior gear*
And please, please, please can we have at least one main character who's trans*/genderqueer/otherwise non-binary?
Good luck. I don't think Star Trek has even had a plain old homosexual.
Garak was originally envisioned by his actor as being omnisexual, which is why in his first appearance he blatantly flirts with Dr. Bashir, but just that was apparently too much and was dropped for the rest of the series.
Alasdair: I'd be willing to bet JJTrek and Bryan Fuller's new series exist so that both Paramount and CBS can produce new Trek content without having to talk to one another ever again. Which, I suppose, means that the TNG era of Trek wasn't another chapter in the story, but a self-contained little episode that has now ended. Speaking as someone who grew up on that era...it's a goddamn shame.
Ditto to that last sentiment; TNG and DS9 were great shows, and Voyager had many good points.
On a more positive note, I am cautiously hopeful about the new Trek series in the works. Whatever one things of the movies (pre- and post-reboot) I feel like serial television is just a superior medium for telling the kinds of stories which Trek is all about. Even really good movies are a side dish, not the main course.
Also, several months ago, ptolemaeus was very pleased to report that Fuller's ideal casting for the show is apparently Angela Basset for Captain and Rosario Dawson as First Officer. Though, as she was quick to point out, to be truly relevant to the current cultural climate as Trek was at its best, what we really need are prominent Arab crew members. I would go further and advocate ditching the "Outgrown these silly superstitions" credo and make at least one main character openly Muslim. At least one Latinx main character would also be strongly advisable given prevailing sentiment here in the U.S. And please, please, please can we have at least one main character who's trans*/genderqueer/otherwise non-binary?
Oh, the transporter accident that reveals Kirk's personality is half rapist! Which Spock thinks is interesting and useful! How could I forget...
Yeah, network politics and the shape of Trek does sound like it could be revealing. And sad.
But yeeeeeahh Gene was kind of a creep. You can find stories about the casting couch he ran back on TOS, and even on TNG his initial notes on the Ferengi had quite a bit about their sexual appetites.
Personally, the book I'm waiting for is the second part due out in August that covers the TNG era and the reboot movies, mostly because I'd like to know both how much of a mess Voyager actually was and just what exactly killed that era. I mean, we have Berman wanting to do TNG forever, Paramount wanting the franchise to be a moneymaking juggernaut in the face of all evidence, and the CBS/Paramount split, but there's gotta be more than that, right?
Come to think of it, the CBS/Paramount split probably completely changed the nature of Trek. When everything was in one house, there was no problem, but now that all the film content rights lie with Paramount and all the TV rights are with CBS, it's probably no longer possible to tell stories in the TNG setting since you'd have to go to the lawyers everytime you wanted to show an Excelsior-class ship or something. I'd be willing to bet JJTrek and Bryan Fuller's new series exist so that both Paramount and CBS can produce new Trek content without having to talk to one another ever again. Which, I suppose, means that the TNG era of Trek wasn't another chapter in the story, but a self-contained little episode that has now ended. Speaking as someone who grew up on that era...it's a goddamn shame.
Spock being treated by a parapsychologist for pon farr-induced insanity, though? With all the sex they couldn't put on TV? That lends further support to the theory that TOS was, like, 50% PG-rated porn.
--Mate or die? CANON
--Alien queen wants to keep captain for reproductive and recreational purposes? CANON
--Military espionage forces Spock to hold hands really intensely with a sexy Romulan who slips into something more comfortable? CANON
--Icy planet with a sexy blonde who invites Spock to share her cozy bearskin bed? CANON
--Underground city of women that kidnaps men for reproduction? CANON
--Plant that suggestively blasts you in the face with pollen and leads Spock at least to declare love and then cut to a scene where he's changed clothes? CANON
--Leading men stripped to the waist and whipped by Space Nazis? CANON
--Space mail order brides for lonely space miners? CANON
--Love potions? CANON if you count the Animated Series
...and probably a lot more I'm forgetting. How many fanfic porn tropes are Gene Roddenberry's fault?
"He told his tormentors, with us there to witness, that each rebellion they crushed would rise again, and again, until the nobles were driven from the land. At the time it seemed a far-fetched thing to say. We would do right by him, even if we ate them one by one."
The publisher is running a Kickstarter for a sequel anthology, Hidden Youth. I figure most of you won't be distracted this weekend by my people's annual explosives-filled celebration of the 1776 Amerexit, so do check it out if you're so inclined!
There's a couple books i need to read before i try to write a review of Shockwave Rider, but once I am moved I plan to do that, and then write the thing and hope Ferretbrain will publish it. :D
the idea that a large majority of Tories would vote for Brexit but that Leave would nevertheless lose the referendum, thus providing Boris with compelling evidence of his sway over the party faithful while avoiding having to deal with the repercussions of leaving the EU (which he rather transparently doesn't really want to do).
Imagine that. It's been sounding like that was the reasoning at least some Leave voters, too, who are now surprised/upset that they won. That they wanted to threaten it without having to actually follow through. Or they thought they could be "strategic" with their voting and just make Stay win by a smaller margin--like, they simultaneously figured 1)that they could manipulate the overall results to make their little point, and 2)that their vote wouldn't really matter or have consequences. It's like the opposite of groupthink, except not in a good way.
Which I guess goes to show that you probably can't eliminate strategic voting purely with the right voting system.
I'd be interested to read what the problem with Tamora Pierce is, too, aside from maybe a writing style not designed with adult readers in mind. I've never read anything by her, as far as I can remember, but I think someone recently recommended her to me when I went on a rant about the way even supposedly feminist female fantasy authors always fail to have their young, usually not pregnant, heroines deal with menstruation; or only ever mentioning it at all if it's necessary for some contrived plot point, like vampire/werewolf attraction or far-too-early-to-be-realistic-in-a-premodern-society menarche triggering a child bride plot. (This 'taboo' is observed even in novels that do mention other bodily functions a few times, or where the authors have no problem describing characters throwing up after drinking too much, for example. Which gives the very unhealthy impression that the normal function of the cis-female body is so dirty and shameful that girls shouldn't even think about it, never mind commiserate with others about the unpleasantness that rules a quarter of their life. And that, really, what the authors are saying is: "No, of course cis-gendered girls can't really go on adventures. That would be far too difficult and messy to even contemplate, especially under pre-industrial circumstances. Yes, even with magic - no need to give even a perfunctory explanation about a magical contraception artifact or hormone-suppressing herbal tisanes or whatever. Instead, lets just pretend girls are all just cis boys with tennis balls down their shirt. I don't care if you can't relate to that.")
And congratulations on your new tax status, Adrienne. ;P