It took me a long time to reach this conclusion. I love TOS, and the characters are cultural icons, but when I want to fanboy over the whole "philosophy" of Star Trek, I'm thinking of TNG every single time.
I think it's more accurate to say that it's such a low bar that it shouldn't ever be failed, unless the reverse bechdel test is also being failed in more or less equal measure. Passing it need not mean much. Failing it, regularly, means plenty.
Also, porn basically has no relevance to the assessment of gender diversity in drama.
I think there is a fan theory that Romulan space is pretty small (relatively speaking), which is how they're able to defend it well with a small number of ships. Which also explains why they're not able to have enough ships to evacuate Romulus.
I think people tend to underestimate what's required to evacuate a planetary population. That's billions of people! The 24th century we see might have some massive passenger transport that could hold, say, 10000 passengers. You'd need hundreds of thousands of ships that size to evacuate the whole planet. And the logistics would be a nightmare's nightmare. A ship that size probably doesn't make planetfall. How do you get them loaded? Think about how long it takes to get a widebody jet boarded - maybe 500 people at most. What about the quadriplegics? What about the bedridden? What about the pets? Etc. etc. etc.
True. Unfortunately, holding people in the transport buffer is one of those things you have to entirely forget exists if you want to tell certain stories. The transporter in general could trivialise a lot of story beats.
Where the devil has T'Lyn been for the past 2 eps? I'm actually totally fine without her being in the show in every episode. Makes the world feel more lived in knowing people have other responsibilities, and the like. After all, they probably have a life off screen.
Anyway, fantastic episode. The idea of parodying a clipshow episode but with original content, I love it. Almost wish they lampshaded Shades of Gray which was the Season 2 clipshow which didn't make a lot of sense as there wasn't enough show to clip from.
I really don't think this post deserves all the downvotes. I mean I get how you might feel differently about all or some of the topics the OP brings to the table, but it's not unfounded and certainly an interesting discussion.
For me, especially the part about sexism in Enterprise really resonated - I have always felt that this is among the worst aspects of the show. I also see points in mpst of the other criticism, although I think part of them can be interpreted differently. For example Section 31: Starfleet has not been a pure utopia since a long time, it's at least bureaucratic most of the time, with an even dimmer view on it in later series. Section 31 fits in there for me. I don't require stories to see the story through moral eyes, that can be a (sometimes painful) exercise left to the viewer. I don't know how much and when this is intended by the series, though.
In any case, I think it's well worth the discussion and ai'd like to thank the OP for the energy they spent in laying all this out.
I don't know what you want to highlight, unless it's "a lot of people don't like being confronted with discrimination". I see OP is passionate about it. But what's the problem there?
They're not interested in progression, or resolution, just ranting at perceived wrongs. It's the standard outrage trope parading as morality.
Every single relationship they see is 'toxic'. Every action is labelled as 'toxic'. They literally rant on the immorality of actions that within the ahow itself are painted as being not only bad, but right over the moral event horizon and accelerating as if it's some astounding revelation only they can see and must bring to the attention of the blind stupid masses. Their entire argument hinges on treating fictional characters as moral guidelines to real life as opposed to complex beings that serve a story.
We all know the fandom kind. It's a blinkered childish media consumption that only see the most basic of surface levels and brands anything they personally dislike or can't understand as bad.
I pointed out the fault is in their misconception that trek 'teaches morals', it is simply a television franchise. Their measured response was to accuse me of enabling oppression. Ain't nobody got time for this sort of ridiculousness in fandom spaces.
The main interest of science fiction is to explore the moral and social effects of current, past or hypothetical events and technological discoveries. It could be basically called "philosophy through futurology", and sci-fi without morals is just that, futurology.
Star Trek from the very beginning was like that, with things as simple as explaining that peace, unification of humanity, democracy and elimination of poverty and starvation are all linked and necessary to have a good world.
I guess you're one of those "stop making shows political" people? Sci-fi shows are by essence here to teach morals, and even if it is unintentional the concept of imagining a future where humanity grew implies applying morals to the show. It's not avoidable.
Netflix has picked up the license for the series. First 20 episodes of Season One drop on Netflix this Christmas, and Season Two is coming in 2024 — with the potential for more.
Just wait till HG Wells Time Machine comes true and a bunch of almost blind underground mole dwellers predate upon the idiotic surface dwellers who never think past the needs of today. Oh.
I think the canon reason given for this and other "why didn't the ship's computer just stop them?" situations that it's a privacy violation to just go around scanning people without their permission.
Although they do seem to do a lot of "scanning for life-signs" so who knows?
Star Trek
Oldest
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago).