But I have a hard time believe people who complain about Trek being woke are actually trekkies.
Same here, and that’s why I singled out out bad faith actors in my post. They aren’t real fans of Trek any more than people who like to highlight black crime statistics in the U.S. are “just asking questions.” It’s bullshit, and they need to be called out on that bullshit. Star Trek has always had a progressive vision of the future; anyone who claims otherwise or complains about “wokeness” is sowing discord and trying to get people to subscribe to their brand of douchebaggery.
Never underestimate the ability of conservatives to ignore political messages that aren’t explicitly stated. Even something as in-your-face as TNG’s The Outcast is easily viewed by conservatives as “a funny alien story”, and not a metaphor for real-world political issues.
Amusingly, even the creators of The Outcast didn’t realise they were making an episode about gender identity. They saw it as an episode about sexuality, and about providing representation to gay people. Which isn’t an incorrect reading, obviously, but I think most people would agree that interpreting it as a trans allegory is a much stronger reading.
The key to the gay allegory is to take a much less literal look at it. It’s about representation of a person who is ostracised for reasons related to the broad category of “sex and gender expression”. It is a metaphor, after all, so there’s nothing wrong with being less literal about it.
Speaking of Riker, Jonathan Frakes wanted Soren to be played by a man, to make the message stronger to the contemporary audience. I think the studio chickened out?
The meaning of woke changed. That is to say, TNG isn’t woke in the same way STD tries to be.
TNG is about self reflection, self improvement, professionalism, materialism, humanism, striving every day to make tomorrow better than yesterday.
STD is about emotions, entitlement… And honestly I struggle to find what the show actually says. There’s a focus on CGI spectacle. But since STD contains a black woman as captain, a gay couple, and a non binary individual, criticism of its lack of depth isn’t allowed.
We see the writers pat themselves on the back for things Star Trek has already done in the past, just to give themselves social brownie points, and if you don’t like it you’re a sexist bigot. That is what woke means today. It’s not true progressivism.
Here’s the thing: I dislike Discovery. I tried, it’s not for me. I dislike the (for me) over-emotional acting.
But I have a hard time believe people who complain about Trek being woke are actually trekkies.
Because they never seem to get upset about far more woke episodes of TOS, TNG or SNW.
The ones I love are the ones who claim Star Trek got too political.
The Star Trek that commented on racism, the cold war and overpopulation. In the mid-1960s.
Same here, and that’s why I singled out out bad faith actors in my post. They aren’t real fans of Trek any more than people who like to highlight black crime statistics in the U.S. are “just asking questions.” It’s bullshit, and they need to be called out on that bullshit. Star Trek has always had a progressive vision of the future; anyone who claims otherwise or complains about “wokeness” is sowing discord and trying to get people to subscribe to their brand of douchebaggery.
Never underestimate the ability of conservatives to ignore political messages that aren’t explicitly stated. Even something as in-your-face as TNG’s The Outcast is easily viewed by conservatives as “a funny alien story”, and not a metaphor for real-world political issues.
Removed by mod
Amusingly, even the creators of The Outcast didn’t realise they were making an episode about gender identity. They saw it as an episode about sexuality, and about providing representation to gay people. Which isn’t an incorrect reading, obviously, but I think most people would agree that interpreting it as a trans allegory is a much stronger reading.
Removed by mod
The key to the gay allegory is to take a much less literal look at it. It’s about representation of a person who is ostracised for reasons related to the broad category of “sex and gender expression”. It is a metaphor, after all, so there’s nothing wrong with being less literal about it.
Speaking of Riker, Jonathan Frakes wanted Soren to be played by a man, to make the message stronger to the contemporary audience. I think the studio chickened out?
Removed by mod
The meaning of woke changed. That is to say, TNG isn’t woke in the same way STD tries to be.
TNG is about self reflection, self improvement, professionalism, materialism, humanism, striving every day to make tomorrow better than yesterday.
STD is about emotions, entitlement… And honestly I struggle to find what the show actually says. There’s a focus on CGI spectacle. But since STD contains a black woman as captain, a gay couple, and a non binary individual, criticism of its lack of depth isn’t allowed.
We see the writers pat themselves on the back for things Star Trek has already done in the past, just to give themselves social brownie points, and if you don’t like it you’re a sexist bigot. That is what woke means today. It’s not true progressivism.