Star Trek: Strange New Worlds
- Thread starter SHIELD Agent 47
- Start date
Yeah the Robert April stuff just stokes the usual racist idiots commenting about things. You know, the ones who, with no point of reference just start saying jive like "I love that he's black so we can enjoy all the white man tears" even though nobody ever said a bad thing about it because no one actually cares.
It's the same thing as it always is, countless posts posturing about how they get off on people "Being mad" even though no one is. The closest thing I've ever seen to it are lore purists who say he should have been cast to resemble the character that was introduced. Which of course is rebutted by things like "We know what they *really* mean".
That's one thing I've loved about this place. That dumb jive is virtually non existent here at The Allspark. We might get into gripe fests about some things or exchange our opinions about stuff... but it least they aren't all disingenuous bullshit takes for the sole purpose of peacocking virtue points.
It's the same thing as it always is, countless posts posturing about how they get off on people "Being mad" even though no one is. The closest thing I've ever seen to it are lore purists who say he should have been cast to resemble the character that was introduced. Which of course is rebutted by things like "We know what they *really* mean".
That's one thing I've loved about this place. That dumb jive is virtually non existent here at The Allspark. We might get into gripe fests about some things or exchange our opinions about stuff... but it least they aren't all disingenuous bullshit takes for the sole purpose of peacocking virtue points.
There certainly are disturbingly racist takes out there. I took a look at the comments section of that video from earlier:
Now, obviously, YouTube comments are a reliable cesspool of bad takes and regressive politics, and I wouldn't have gone there looking for a black swan existence proof otherwise. I'm not characterizing the whole Trek fanbase here. Point of fact, that was the most overtly racist or angry post I saw in the first couple screenfuls of comments, and I saw one "ha, get over it" post on the way there, with much of the rest in roughly in the "just make a new character" group or joking about a canonical explanation for why he's black now.
People lightly snarking at the choice, or calling the writers dumb for not using a different name, though - how many of that majority are consciously motivated by an opinion they recognize would be considered racist, but aren't saying so? I'm betting it's not all. I'm betting it's not none. I'm betting a lot more of them, consciously or unconsciously, are reacting to something that feels like "typical forced diversity" that their favorite talking heads have told them is bad and cheap and pandering. They don't care about the race of the character, but they also don't care about racism or representation, and they're more likely to criticize a TV show for rocking the boat than they are to call out the racists in the discussion. Enlightened centrists concerned about the assholes on both sides don't tend to be allies of representation. They want you to take your politics out of their franchise, and if putting in black people brings politics with it, they ultimately want you to get rid of those, too.
As for telling people what they *really* mean: I was raised by parents and have been around all sorts of people who *really* meant things. My stepfather was quite threatened by the presence of Starbuck in the BSG reboot as a gender-nonconforming woman. He would not have described himself as such. What he told me instead was that if they wanted to write her the way they did, they should have kept her a man instead. I think people who are uncomfortable about women or racial minorities taking on certain kinds of roles, for reasons they might not really understand themselves, can massage those feelings into something more acceptable. It's not that the reaction they're having is based in a racial bias, it's that they're defending canon or calling out pandering or tokenism and so on. Maybe not everyone who makes those kinds of arguments is motivated by racism, but we expect the converse to be true, that people who are motivated by racist ideas are going to tend to sound like that. If you've been burned enough times by people who sound like that right up to the point they turn heel, you learn not to take everything at face value. And I mean, I'm white, I have the privilege not to experience that as regularly or seriously as a lot of folks.
Even if someone is interested in protecting canonicity, which as I've said I can't fully relate to because that's not something I value, I really do expect them to at least have some awareness that old media can have baked in biases that they shouldn't be protecting. Obviously, Captain Pike in The Cage is canonically sexist, and no one's upset that they broke continuity to change that. Meanwhile I've heard black D&D players talk about getting into a game in old versions of the system, and being told they couldn't play a black elf because black elves are evil. The other participants are just lore purists, but the lore in this case is racist and they're not self-aware enough to see the problem with defending it.
So no, you can't call someone "racist" for wanting those kinds of guys to get over it or die mad about it. At worst, they're making a false positive assumption in a pretty plausible situation, usually in response to people who are themselves having an immune response to what they call "woke" or "forced diversity" or whatnot. Calling them "racist" is pretty much the same as those comments on the video in the vein of "What if they made Geordi Asian?" - the fact that you're assuming an even playing field where everything is symmetrical and reciprocal is the problem.
Black people are stealing Star Trek from its rightful owners, white people. Sure.
Now, obviously, YouTube comments are a reliable cesspool of bad takes and regressive politics, and I wouldn't have gone there looking for a black swan existence proof otherwise. I'm not characterizing the whole Trek fanbase here. Point of fact, that was the most overtly racist or angry post I saw in the first couple screenfuls of comments, and I saw one "ha, get over it" post on the way there, with much of the rest in roughly in the "just make a new character" group or joking about a canonical explanation for why he's black now.
People lightly snarking at the choice, or calling the writers dumb for not using a different name, though - how many of that majority are consciously motivated by an opinion they recognize would be considered racist, but aren't saying so? I'm betting it's not all. I'm betting it's not none. I'm betting a lot more of them, consciously or unconsciously, are reacting to something that feels like "typical forced diversity" that their favorite talking heads have told them is bad and cheap and pandering. They don't care about the race of the character, but they also don't care about racism or representation, and they're more likely to criticize a TV show for rocking the boat than they are to call out the racists in the discussion. Enlightened centrists concerned about the assholes on both sides don't tend to be allies of representation. They want you to take your politics out of their franchise, and if putting in black people brings politics with it, they ultimately want you to get rid of those, too.
As for telling people what they *really* mean: I was raised by parents and have been around all sorts of people who *really* meant things. My stepfather was quite threatened by the presence of Starbuck in the BSG reboot as a gender-nonconforming woman. He would not have described himself as such. What he told me instead was that if they wanted to write her the way they did, they should have kept her a man instead. I think people who are uncomfortable about women or racial minorities taking on certain kinds of roles, for reasons they might not really understand themselves, can massage those feelings into something more acceptable. It's not that the reaction they're having is based in a racial bias, it's that they're defending canon or calling out pandering or tokenism and so on. Maybe not everyone who makes those kinds of arguments is motivated by racism, but we expect the converse to be true, that people who are motivated by racist ideas are going to tend to sound like that. If you've been burned enough times by people who sound like that right up to the point they turn heel, you learn not to take everything at face value. And I mean, I'm white, I have the privilege not to experience that as regularly or seriously as a lot of folks.
Even if someone is interested in protecting canonicity, which as I've said I can't fully relate to because that's not something I value, I really do expect them to at least have some awareness that old media can have baked in biases that they shouldn't be protecting. Obviously, Captain Pike in The Cage is canonically sexist, and no one's upset that they broke continuity to change that. Meanwhile I've heard black D&D players talk about getting into a game in old versions of the system, and being told they couldn't play a black elf because black elves are evil. The other participants are just lore purists, but the lore in this case is racist and they're not self-aware enough to see the problem with defending it.
So no, you can't call someone "racist" for wanting those kinds of guys to get over it or die mad about it. At worst, they're making a false positive assumption in a pretty plausible situation, usually in response to people who are themselves having an immune response to what they call "woke" or "forced diversity" or whatnot. Calling them "racist" is pretty much the same as those comments on the video in the vein of "What if they made Geordi Asian?" - the fact that you're assuming an even playing field where everything is symmetrical and reciprocal is the problem.
That's funny, I just happened to rewatch that last night.
I'm not a fan film guy, Axanar only came to my attention because of the lawsuit, but I really liked it. I liked Soval bridging the gap between the Enterprise and TOS eras. I liked the backstory given to Garth (one of the half-dozen war heroes whose escapades were "required reading at the Academy"). I even liked the documentary style (and tried not to think about the likelihood of the Klingon general who lost the war agreeing to sit down for an interview).
And I much prefer the simple explanation for the war (this is what the Klingons do, they conquer things) over the weird fear that the Federation was going to destroy their identity or whatever from Discovery.
It's more of me just pointing out how many people lack the utter self awareness of their hypocrisy. If your default reaction to a black actor being cast is "Why does it have to be a black person?" then there are probably some racist undertones in there and it's fine if people call it out when they see it.
But that cuts both ways. When your first reaction to a black actor being cast is to laugh about it out of spite because it will create scenarios you imagine happening and think it's funny, then there are probably some racist undertones there as well. Especially when the ratio is about 10:1 between the latter and the former. And further than that, the latter is usually just other white people.
In either case, both vocal groups are assholes since when normal people see a black actor being cast their default reaction is "Cool, I saw him in X" or "I've not seen him in anything so it will be interesting to see his take."
You see what I'm saying?
But that cuts both ways. When your first reaction to a black actor being cast is to laugh about it out of spite because it will create scenarios you imagine happening and think it's funny, then there are probably some racist undertones there as well. Especially when the ratio is about 10:1 between the latter and the former. And further than that, the latter is usually just other white people.
In either case, both vocal groups are assholes since when normal people see a black actor being cast their default reaction is "Cool, I saw him in X" or "I've not seen him in anything so it will be interesting to see his take."
You see what I'm saying?
Oh, okay, I see what you're saying, if some white liberal fan wants black people cast first and foremost because it will make the (also white) 4channers angry, then they're being racist themselves by reducing that actor to a pawn and only thinking of them in terms of their race. That's probably true. I've had friends who would get really weird when talking about certain minority groups, in an ostensibly "positive" way, that seemed like signaling or compensating and made me really uncomfortable. And while the harm isn't as obvious as the other guys, that kind of mindset can turn a discussion really toxic really fast.
And you know, I have to be honest and say that within the teensy little part of me that feels bad for Discovery with SNW already looking so much better, there's another, smaller piece within that part that feels really bad that the show that well out of its way for a cast that wasn't dominated by straight cis white dudes is the one looking like the ugly step-sibling to the one headed by two straight white guys and a white lady. And while within that smaller piece within the part, there's a little bit of concern for Paramount taking an unfortunate message from that in there, quite a lot of the space is taken up by the feeling that the wrong fans are going to feel validated by it. Which is like some double-reverse permutation of egging on the racists, whether imaginary or otherwise. Of course, if they're anything like the folks in that YouTube video's comments, they're all somehow still so stuck on hate mode they didn't even notice SNW looks good and I've got nothing to worry about.
And you know, I have to be honest and say that within the teensy little part of me that feels bad for Discovery with SNW already looking so much better, there's another, smaller piece within that part that feels really bad that the show that well out of its way for a cast that wasn't dominated by straight cis white dudes is the one looking like the ugly step-sibling to the one headed by two straight white guys and a white lady. And while within that smaller piece within the part, there's a little bit of concern for Paramount taking an unfortunate message from that in there, quite a lot of the space is taken up by the feeling that the wrong fans are going to feel validated by it. Which is like some double-reverse permutation of egging on the racists, whether imaginary or otherwise. Of course, if they're anything like the folks in that YouTube video's comments, they're all somehow still so stuck on hate mode they didn't even notice SNW looks good and I've got nothing to worry about.
But if Chakotay wasn't descended from the Rubber Tree People, those vision quests could be really problematic.
Just saw the First Episode on YouTube on Paramount's Channel.
That felt like Trek to me. It was a fun watch and was over before I realized it. I enjoyed the representation of every character there. I've been a in and out fan since Enterprise. I won't speak on Discovery or Picard as I've only seen clips and can't give a full feel for either show. My only real problem that turned me off of Disccovery was how they once again redesigned my favorite trek race (Klingons) but it's not work vitriolic hate over.. (Also the main reason I haven't seen Discovery and Picard is I'm not shelling out money for every streaming service that has shows I "Might" get into. ) But SNW was good. I hope it does well.
That felt like Trek to me. It was a fun watch and was over before I realized it. I enjoyed the representation of every character there. I've been a in and out fan since Enterprise. I won't speak on Discovery or Picard as I've only seen clips and can't give a full feel for either show. My only real problem that turned me off of Disccovery was how they once again redesigned my favorite trek race (Klingons) but it's not work vitriolic hate over.. (Also the main reason I haven't seen Discovery and Picard is I'm not shelling out money for every streaming service that has shows I "Might" get into. ) But SNW was good. I hope it does well.
They do still have a one-week trial free with any new account. If you're curious to see whether Discovery, Picard, and SNW are worth paying for, you could pick a convenient week and binge some stuff. Personally (as you can already tell from this thread) I'd start with Disco S3 and whatever SNW is available by then.
Don't forget Lower Decks!
And Paramount+ does have a decent little library of content. Halo has been pretty solid, and they've got Jackass Forever, Infinite and Snake Eyes: GI joe available to watch as well.
I need to watch that some time. It was a leading fan answer to the question of what Discovery was originally supposed to be about.
Caught the first two episodes. It's surprisingly okay. Not quite amazing yet but has potential. After Discovery and Picard my expectations were low but so far so good on this one.
I'm not sure about Sam Kirks mustache however. I get that he had it back in the day but like you know... if were changing peoples entire races we can probably get away with losing that 'stache.
Do wonder if they will be able to resist having Pike find a way out. I assume not because of canon but also the trek timeline is so battered at this point and it's not like it would have major ramifications on the timeline besides negating a couple episodes of ToS into an alt timeline.
I'm not sure about Sam Kirks mustache however. I get that he had it back in the day but like you know... if were changing peoples entire races we can probably get away with losing that 'stache.
Do wonder if they will be able to resist having Pike find a way out. I assume not because of canon but also the trek timeline is so battered at this point and it's not like it would have major ramifications on the timeline besides negating a couple episodes of ToS into an alt timeline.
Sam's moustache is ridiculous.
It stays.
It stays.
Maybe I'll feel differently in five years, but I hope that decision is locked in a box and the key cast into Mount Doom. SNW is giving me hope that Trek can be good again and I don't want to see it dipping into the Picard S1 playbook.
3 for 3! This one gave off a lot of "Naked Time" / "Naked Now" vibes, continuing the fine tradition of early-first-season-contagion episodes.
If I have any minor nitpick (and it's not even about the events of this episode, exactly), it's
If I have any minor nitpick (and it's not even about the events of this episode, exactly), it's
that everyone seems very quick to say screw Starfleet regulations. I know Kirk's era was more "wild west" than Picard's, and that this is even earlier still, and obviously nothing's being done for immoral reasons. I'm only wary because the other new shows often give off a "Starfleet sucks, only our ragtag heroes are good" vibe, and I don't want that from this.
Chimeric antibodies = The new midichrorians?
I don't want them to change the continuity, but I'd like to see some play with the question of whether it is really immutable for him. I would like to see at least one situation that looks like it could be the one and he finds another way. But in the end, what I want to see is that there is a moment that he knows this is it and he hasn't dodged it after all and he could totally dodge it now. But he doesn't dodge it because it is what needs to be done. There are people that need saving and it is his duty and he can't ask someone else to do his duty for him.