|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"Any Dr Who fans here"
Love you, too
Anybody here care to comment on their feelings about the most recent Dr Who season. There has been a ton of bad press and fan comments on Youtube placing the blame on the BBC and Producer Chris Chibnall turning what used to be a fun "science fiction" show into a politically correct show that preaches about social justice.
My feeling is, the show can be salvaged if the BBC does a TOTAL makeover and ditches the producer, the director, the writers, the inappropriate opera music, fire the last Doctor and companion and totally return to the roots of the original 1960's show....i.e. no political messages of any kind should be injected into any future episodes, it needs to be re-done as 100% science fiction and nothing else.
But that will be a tall order, given that the show is owned and controlled by a very political organization called The BBC. Most fans would like to see control taken away from he BBC and the show be managed by Big Finish Productions, who are a fan based Dr Who organization who lovingly did the restorations..
I watched as a kid from the first Doctor in 1963, all the way up to David Tennant (the last decent Doctor) but I have given up on the series after the latest season went into mindnumbingly boring political and social justice issues.
The only saving grace is, at least I am no longer forced to pay for this show, now that I moved to the USA. I pity the poor UK fans who are forced to pay for the BBC to produce this crap because that are forced to pay a TV license tax that funds the BBC.
MK
My feeling is, the show can be salvaged if the BBC does a TOTAL makeover and ditches the producer, the director, the writers, the inappropriate opera music, fire the last Doctor and companion and totally return to the roots of the original 1960's show....i.e. no political messages of any kind should be injected into any future episodes, it needs to be re-done as 100% science fiction and nothing else.
But that will be a tall order, given that the show is owned and controlled by a very political organization called The BBC. Most fans would like to see control taken away from he BBC and the show be managed by Big Finish Productions, who are a fan based Dr Who organization who lovingly did the restorations..
I watched as a kid from the first Doctor in 1963, all the way up to David Tennant (the last decent Doctor) but I have given up on the series after the latest season went into mindnumbingly boring political and social justice issues.
The only saving grace is, at least I am no longer forced to pay for this show, now that I moved to the USA. I pity the poor UK fans who are forced to pay for the BBC to produce this crap because that are forced to pay a TV license tax that funds the BBC.
MK
Do unto others, then run
Great Science Fiction has always had a whole load of messages about the societies we live in and morality.
I tend to think people who don't like the messages are the ones with the issues, not the storytellers.
In general fans have to remember that they don't 'own' the things they love. It's great for them to enjoy them, but if they are not happy with them they should move on. If audiences drop, then the people making these things may make different choices about what they make.
This isn't meant to be an aggressive response, but I definitely believe that a very vocal minority creates the impression that terrible things are happening to the franchises they love and everyone hates them,. However, this isn't reflected in viewing figures or ticket sales. There is also often an agenda behind the criticisms that I personally find quite sinister.
I tend to think people who don't like the messages are the ones with the issues, not the storytellers.
In general fans have to remember that they don't 'own' the things they love. It's great for them to enjoy them, but if they are not happy with them they should move on. If audiences drop, then the people making these things may make different choices about what they make.
This isn't meant to be an aggressive response, but I definitely believe that a very vocal minority creates the impression that terrible things are happening to the franchises they love and everyone hates them,. However, this isn't reflected in viewing figures or ticket sales. There is also often an agenda behind the criticisms that I personally find quite sinister.
Eh, there's two sides to every coin (three I guess unless you forget about the edge). I can't say I know anything about Doctor Who. I watched a little bit back when I was a kid and they were reruns from the 4th Doctor Tom Baker. But Star Trek has always been my jam.
But what you are describing is something that is permeating ALL media. Fiction, non-fiction, every single facet of society.
So in the original Star Trek, politics played a HEAVY role and almost got the show cancelled a number of times. The south in particular did NOT like that scene of Shatner and Nichols kissing.
Star Trek made a ton of positive contributions to society in the short time since the 60s. I remember Whoopi Goldberg recalling when she saw it as a child on TV and went running to her mother. She said something to the effect of "Mama, there's a black lady on TV and she ain't no maid". I would say this was a VERY positive thing.
Here was a show going on during the Civil rights movement and the Cold War pushing all sorts of buttons. Take a minute and think about this.
A black woman was the voice of the ship.
A Japanese man was the pilot 20 years after WWII
A Russian was made into a Beatle and put in charge of navigation and weapons during the cold war
The first officer was inhuman and had similarities to Satan inferred at times
Women in the military, in active combat roles
This was huge! But where I think Star Trek then and it and others differ today is that in the original Star Trek these things weren't really explained. They were put there as a given and that's JUST how it was. It wasn't brought up because it said more to the viewer by not. It showed that this was simply acceptable and how things would become. People would stop looking at each other based on their nationality, race, sex, etc and just see them equally as HUMAN.
Now, there were obvious things looking back that weren't touched on. Homosexuality for instance with George Takei. But I think he even said he talked to Roddenberry about it, and it just never got there because the show was cancelled after the third season.
Then The Next Generation expanded on that with things like the Prime Directive. The idea that other cultures and planets are different and we just have to respect that and not interfere except in cases of XYZ. This caused a robust storyline expanding on what is right and wrong, and showing that morality isn't always black or white: that the universe is full of other colors and possibilities.
Fast forward to today. Today feels like a regression of what we've been fighting for. Politics are more polarized than ever, and tribalism is rampant. Things are too white, too male, to cis-gendered etc. People get "offended" over the simplest slight, often times when it's not even intended to be a slight. Speech is becoming less and less free with new terms and conditions for calling this or that "hate speech". Censorship therefore is also increasing.
People have redefined equality with the definition for equity and are upset that everyone's outcome isn't the same. There aren't enough women in STEM, there isn't any (or enough) gay sex in my family sitcom. Why haven't they updated changed this character in the latest reboot of whatever IP to be non-binary gendered, multiracial, pan-romantic, dracosexual? And when those things ARE address, they're not enough.
All of the things that were in Star Trek in the 60s that didn't need to be explained then and could just be accepted now need to be EXPLICITLY explained and have their own story line. And if it doesn't the fans will riot! And if they do, others will call it forced.
--- Conclusion ---
To me, it feels like a combination of problems.
Oversaturation - We have so much of something that we need more and more to get the same enjoyment out of it. What was good 30 years ago is now plebeian.
Entitlement - If we don't get what we think we deserve then it must be shit, or someone is Satan, or worse, Hitler/fascist/marxist/(insert bad name here)
Before we used to not give a shit. Now we give too many shits, and about things that don't really matter. We create new problems out of things that aren't really problems so we can make new solutions. We redefine words and ideas because we can make them "different" rather than coming up with new or better words/terms.
In short, humanity has become bored, entitled brats. We would rather fight over our differences, or redefine things than, create new things and grow.
But what you are describing is something that is permeating ALL media. Fiction, non-fiction, every single facet of society.
So in the original Star Trek, politics played a HEAVY role and almost got the show cancelled a number of times. The south in particular did NOT like that scene of Shatner and Nichols kissing.
Star Trek made a ton of positive contributions to society in the short time since the 60s. I remember Whoopi Goldberg recalling when she saw it as a child on TV and went running to her mother. She said something to the effect of "Mama, there's a black lady on TV and she ain't no maid". I would say this was a VERY positive thing.
Here was a show going on during the Civil rights movement and the Cold War pushing all sorts of buttons. Take a minute and think about this.
A black woman was the voice of the ship.
A Japanese man was the pilot 20 years after WWII
A Russian was made into a Beatle and put in charge of navigation and weapons during the cold war
The first officer was inhuman and had similarities to Satan inferred at times
Women in the military, in active combat roles
This was huge! But where I think Star Trek then and it and others differ today is that in the original Star Trek these things weren't really explained. They were put there as a given and that's JUST how it was. It wasn't brought up because it said more to the viewer by not. It showed that this was simply acceptable and how things would become. People would stop looking at each other based on their nationality, race, sex, etc and just see them equally as HUMAN.
Now, there were obvious things looking back that weren't touched on. Homosexuality for instance with George Takei. But I think he even said he talked to Roddenberry about it, and it just never got there because the show was cancelled after the third season.
Then The Next Generation expanded on that with things like the Prime Directive. The idea that other cultures and planets are different and we just have to respect that and not interfere except in cases of XYZ. This caused a robust storyline expanding on what is right and wrong, and showing that morality isn't always black or white: that the universe is full of other colors and possibilities.
Fast forward to today. Today feels like a regression of what we've been fighting for. Politics are more polarized than ever, and tribalism is rampant. Things are too white, too male, to cis-gendered etc. People get "offended" over the simplest slight, often times when it's not even intended to be a slight. Speech is becoming less and less free with new terms and conditions for calling this or that "hate speech". Censorship therefore is also increasing.
People have redefined equality with the definition for equity and are upset that everyone's outcome isn't the same. There aren't enough women in STEM, there isn't any (or enough) gay sex in my family sitcom. Why haven't they updated changed this character in the latest reboot of whatever IP to be non-binary gendered, multiracial, pan-romantic, dracosexual? And when those things ARE address, they're not enough.
All of the things that were in Star Trek in the 60s that didn't need to be explained then and could just be accepted now need to be EXPLICITLY explained and have their own story line. And if it doesn't the fans will riot! And if they do, others will call it forced.
--- Conclusion ---
To me, it feels like a combination of problems.
Oversaturation - We have so much of something that we need more and more to get the same enjoyment out of it. What was good 30 years ago is now plebeian.
Entitlement - If we don't get what we think we deserve then it must be shit, or someone is Satan, or worse, Hitler/fascist/marxist/(insert bad name here)
Before we used to not give a shit. Now we give too many shits, and about things that don't really matter. We create new problems out of things that aren't really problems so we can make new solutions. We redefine words and ideas because we can make them "different" rather than coming up with new or better words/terms.
In short, humanity has become bored, entitled brats. We would rather fight over our differences, or redefine things than, create new things and grow.
He's more potato now than man. Twisted and evil.
Any fan of classic Who would either know, or at least intuit, that the Daleks were a political statement. That is, they were Terry Nation's attempt to lampoon the ridiculousness of Nazi eugenics by demonstrating a race of people who had taken that logic to its logical consequences -- i.e., a race of little hateful intolerant hyperviolent creeps with a relatively small gene pool who can only survive by driving around in their own personalized tanks. So the idea that Dr. Who should avoid politics is absurd.
(In general, if you don't like politics, science fiction is not going to be up your alley. Not even hard sci-fi avoids politics -- Isaac Asimov didn't, Kim Stanley Robinson didn't, Arthur C Clarke didn't. If what you mean is that you don't like hearing from a social justice perspective, then okay -- go read right-wing military sci-fi guys like Robert Heinlein. Just don't kid yourself about what you're getting into with science fiction.)
About the latest Dr. Who, though.
In my view, the newest season was dull because the writing was not good. It wasn't bad, it was just... bland and soulless gruel, like corporate drivel. The creative risks were all at the conceptual or political level, and no further risks were made at the level of storytelling or the acting, etc. Apart from the morality play of the week (which were often interesting in theory), it was a paint-by-numbers affair. But yeah, in my view, Chibnall didn't really score any big hits as a writer. The closest he got was (a) "Rosa" (as a co-writer), which was basically good once you get past the lame villain, and (b) the Dalek-based New Years episode, which was just a return to form. And then there was that ballsy weird one with the blind girl -- which I quite liked, though Chibnall was not the writer on that one.
What went wrong? I don't know. One problem is that Steven Moffatt, the previous showrunner, was a brilliant storyteller. At least some of his episodes are among the best of the entire 50-odd year run of the show -- in my opinion, he is probably responsible for most of the top 5. Not all of his stuff was great, but some of it was transcendent. So, yeah, that's a tough act to follow. A second problem is with the job itself. Showrunners are expected to write most of the episodes, which contributes to lower quality and probably high burnout. But a third problem is that Chibnall's strengths are tied to prosaic stories like Broadchurch. He is better suited to be an ordinary writer working under a gonzo showrunner than as showrunner for a gonzo show. It's a buzzkill.
Jodi Whittacker was fine, though her Doctor was a bit too much of a copycat of past doctors. But I tend to overlook that because every new doctor (including my favorites) all felt weird their first season in. I was annoyed at the modularity of the season, detached from the rest of the show -- nothing about the legacy of the show really made an appearance until after the season concluded with the Daleks. I also didn't care too much about the companions. Also, there were too many of them. The TARDIS is bigger on the inside, but it shouldn't be a clown car. Or at least the clowns should have personalities instead of being amicable sockpuppets.
(In general, if you don't like politics, science fiction is not going to be up your alley. Not even hard sci-fi avoids politics -- Isaac Asimov didn't, Kim Stanley Robinson didn't, Arthur C Clarke didn't. If what you mean is that you don't like hearing from a social justice perspective, then okay -- go read right-wing military sci-fi guys like Robert Heinlein. Just don't kid yourself about what you're getting into with science fiction.)
About the latest Dr. Who, though.
In my view, the newest season was dull because the writing was not good. It wasn't bad, it was just... bland and soulless gruel, like corporate drivel. The creative risks were all at the conceptual or political level, and no further risks were made at the level of storytelling or the acting, etc. Apart from the morality play of the week (which were often interesting in theory), it was a paint-by-numbers affair. But yeah, in my view, Chibnall didn't really score any big hits as a writer. The closest he got was (a) "Rosa" (as a co-writer), which was basically good once you get past the lame villain, and (b) the Dalek-based New Years episode, which was just a return to form. And then there was that ballsy weird one with the blind girl -- which I quite liked, though Chibnall was not the writer on that one.
What went wrong? I don't know. One problem is that Steven Moffatt, the previous showrunner, was a brilliant storyteller. At least some of his episodes are among the best of the entire 50-odd year run of the show -- in my opinion, he is probably responsible for most of the top 5. Not all of his stuff was great, but some of it was transcendent. So, yeah, that's a tough act to follow. A second problem is with the job itself. Showrunners are expected to write most of the episodes, which contributes to lower quality and probably high burnout. But a third problem is that Chibnall's strengths are tied to prosaic stories like Broadchurch. He is better suited to be an ordinary writer working under a gonzo showrunner than as showrunner for a gonzo show. It's a buzzkill.
Jodi Whittacker was fine, though her Doctor was a bit too much of a copycat of past doctors. But I tend to overlook that because every new doctor (including my favorites) all felt weird their first season in. I was annoyed at the modularity of the season, detached from the rest of the show -- nothing about the legacy of the show really made an appearance until after the season concluded with the Daleks. I also didn't care too much about the companions. Also, there were too many of them. The TARDIS is bigger on the inside, but it shouldn't be a clown car. Or at least the clowns should have personalities instead of being amicable sockpuppets.
I'm not sure how you can make a show about time travel not political.
I watched Doctor Who every week (9-13) Capaldi for me was the last Doctor. The new series seems very like they are using it as a proving ground.
When it was being relasied the creators said that they wanted to make a new Doctor Who for the new generation, but with that they isolated the current fans. In the nd the New Years episode brought back the Daleks (more or less), which brought me back if only for that episode.
The writer's of the new series also have a problem that writers sometimes have and that is too many main characters. In the past it has always been (mosto f the time) the Doctor and a single companion.
This new Doctor has three. All with slightly connecting story lines but not enough that they all needed building across the season.
Thanks to Doctor Who being less appealing to me I've found other shows to watch that are better; particulary story wise.
When it was being relasied the creators said that they wanted to make a new Doctor Who for the new generation, but with that they isolated the current fans. In the nd the New Years episode brought back the Daleks (more or less), which brought me back if only for that episode.
The writer's of the new series also have a problem that writers sometimes have and that is too many main characters. In the past it has always been (mosto f the time) the Doctor and a single companion.
This new Doctor has three. All with slightly connecting story lines but not enough that they all needed building across the season.
Thanks to Doctor Who being less appealing to me I've found other shows to watch that are better; particulary story wise.
Amen to that. Doctor Who RIP
I enjoyed the 1966-67 Irwin Allen series "The Time Tunnel" and the writers of that series did something unique that has never been done in any other science fiction series....i.e. they created a "groundhog day" concept that would ensure that this would be the only series that would never end and live on in perpetuity. By that I mean....there were only 30 episodes made and each week they would jump from one time era to the next, and in episode #30 at the end of that epsiode they simply jumped back to the same point they were in episode #1 (aboard the Titanic). So that series is the only series I know that is a "loop". I prefer that to the ending of Blakes 7, where everybody dies in the final episode.
Currently I am watching a new DVD restored version of the 1967-68 Quinn Martin series "The Invaders" with Roy Thinnes, which I had not seen in many years. Now watching it again I appreciate how good the writing and the acting was in that series, and that special effects are not as important as good stories. If you have not seen that series, it is worth seeing.
MK
I enjoyed the 1966-67 Irwin Allen series "The Time Tunnel" and the writers of that series did something unique that has never been done in any other science fiction series....i.e. they created a "groundhog day" concept that would ensure that this would be the only series that would never end and live on in perpetuity. By that I mean....there were only 30 episodes made and each week they would jump from one time era to the next, and in episode #30 at the end of that epsiode they simply jumped back to the same point they were in episode #1 (aboard the Titanic). So that series is the only series I know that is a "loop". I prefer that to the ending of Blakes 7, where everybody dies in the final episode.
Currently I am watching a new DVD restored version of the 1967-68 Quinn Martin series "The Invaders" with Roy Thinnes, which I had not seen in many years. Now watching it again I appreciate how good the writing and the acting was in that series, and that special effects are not as important as good stories. If you have not seen that series, it is worth seeing.
MK
Do unto others, then run
Nein said: Any fan of classic Who would either know, or at least intuit, that the Daleks were a political statement. That is, they were Terry Nation's attempt to lampoon the ridiculousness of Nazi eugenics by demonstrating a race of people who had taken that logic to its logical consequences -- i.e., a race of little hateful intolerant hyperviolent creeps with a relatively small gene pool who can only survive by driving around in their own personalized tanks. So the idea that Dr. Who should avoid politics is absurd.
(In general, if you don't like politics, science fiction is not going to be up your alley. Not even hard sci-fi avoids politics -- Isaac Asimov didn't, Kim Stanley Robinson didn't, Arthur C Clarke didn't. If what you mean is that you don't like hearing from a social justice perspective, then okay -- go read right-wing military sci-fi guys like Robert Heinlein. Just don't kid yourself about what you're getting into with science fiction.)
(In general, if you don't like politics, science fiction is not going to be up your alley. Not even hard sci-fi avoids politics -- Isaac Asimov didn't, Kim Stanley Robinson didn't, Arthur C Clarke didn't. If what you mean is that you don't like hearing from a social justice perspective, then okay -- go read right-wing military sci-fi guys like Robert Heinlein. Just don't kid yourself about what you're getting into with science fiction.)
I learned something new today. I didn't know Daleks were people IN robots, I thought they were robots.
I guess once I find a place to watch some Dr. Who, I should probably binge through some of it and get to understand it. So you can see that unfortunately, I have next to no Dr. Who knowledge and can't comment on that part of the conversation. Regarding the politics. You're absolutely right. I think the shift that some people don't care so much for is that the politics have shifted from larger macro problems to smaller interpersonal drama (micro problems). Before we were talking about an entire race of people who were black on one side and white on the other persecuting ones who were reversed in their colors (Star Trek: Let That Be Your Last Battlefield). It was a larger thought provoking example of how silly our prejudices can be.
Fast forward to today and the paradigm has shifted. Many things are addressed to smaller groups. And that isn't a bad thing. The problem is some groups get butthurt angry if theirs isn't addressed, or the outcome isn't how they wanted it. That creates more fractioned groups and more infighting.
Then people of the old guard are like 'Why are we fighting over petty shit? Instead, why aren't we addressing new increases in older problems we were making progress on like racial tensions, or nationalism, tribalism, etc'?
Then...there's just THIS kind of crazy shit.
https://boundingintocomics.com/2019/05/01/petition-demands-captain-marvel-be-played-by-gay-woman-of-color-not-brie-larson/
Just...I dunno, make your own characters or stories. For instance Black Spiderman worked out just fine because no one tried to delete the original Peter Parker, instead they made a new Miles Morales! Now we got more spidermen and they're different!
He's more potato now than man. Twisted and evil.
Were these small morality lessons though? Let's go through the moral of each episode:
1. The Woman Who Fell To Earth -- maybe something about dealing with grief
2. The Ghost Monument --- generic space caper
3. Rosa-- Racism is bad; also you can't take all the burdens of history away from some people no matter how much you might want to
4. Arachnids in the UK -- Americans are terrible
5. The Tsuranga Conundrum--space caper
6. Demons of the Punjab-- exploration of the India-Pakistan separation, how it turned brothers against brothers-- overall I felt this was a really interesting episode where I actually learned something new about history
7. Kerblam!-- Amazon.com warehouses are pretty evil
8. The Witchfinders-- sexism is bad, made watchable only because Alan Cummings made it fun
9. It Takes You Away--everybody needs a friend!
10. The Battle of Ranskoor -- space caper
Special. Resolutions-- Dalek caper.
Of these, as I look back on them, surprisingly few actually took any interesting moral direction: 3,4,6,7. The rest were apparently bland capers or involved the sort of morality or politics they've already done to death.
Personally, I was fine with all but 1,2, and 10. The toothface predator villain in 1 and 10 was tremendously lame. But that's not high praise-- I only *really* liked 5 and 9. I can't fully express why, but they just seemed like they had a few layers worth chewing on, with problems and stakes that directly concerned the choices and motivations of the main characters.
1. The Woman Who Fell To Earth -- maybe something about dealing with grief
2. The Ghost Monument --- generic space caper
3. Rosa-- Racism is bad; also you can't take all the burdens of history away from some people no matter how much you might want to
4. Arachnids in the UK -- Americans are terrible
5. The Tsuranga Conundrum--space caper
6. Demons of the Punjab-- exploration of the India-Pakistan separation, how it turned brothers against brothers-- overall I felt this was a really interesting episode where I actually learned something new about history
7. Kerblam!-- Amazon.com warehouses are pretty evil
8. The Witchfinders-- sexism is bad, made watchable only because Alan Cummings made it fun
9. It Takes You Away--everybody needs a friend!
10. The Battle of Ranskoor -- space caper
Special. Resolutions-- Dalek caper.
Of these, as I look back on them, surprisingly few actually took any interesting moral direction: 3,4,6,7. The rest were apparently bland capers or involved the sort of morality or politics they've already done to death.
Personally, I was fine with all but 1,2, and 10. The toothface predator villain in 1 and 10 was tremendously lame. But that's not high praise-- I only *really* liked 5 and 9. I can't fully express why, but they just seemed like they had a few layers worth chewing on, with problems and stakes that directly concerned the choices and motivations of the main characters.
Potatoman-J said:
Then...there's just THIS kind of crazy shit.
Then...there's just THIS kind of crazy shit.
I think we need to have a conversation as a culture about how it's okay to ignore people like this who are obviously just trolling for attention-- so long as you acknowledge some trade offs, and always try to do justice to the things people say, and recognize that there's room for growth and learning
Potatoman-J said: Eh, there's two sides to every coin (three I guess unless you forget about the edge). I can't say I know anything about Doctor Who. I watched a little bit back when I was a kid and they were reruns from the 4th Doctor Tom Baker. But Star Trek has always been my jam.
But what you are describing is something that is permeating ALL media. Fiction, non-fiction, every single facet of society.
So in the original Star Trek, politics played a HEAVY role and almost got the show cancelled a number of times. The south in particular did NOT like that scene of Shatner and Nichols kissing.
Star Trek made a ton of positive contributions to society in the short time since the 60s. I remember Whoopi Goldberg recalling when she saw it as a child on TV and went running to her mother. She said something to the effect of "Mama, there's a black lady on TV and she ain't no maid". I would say this was a VERY positive thing.
Here was a show going on during the Civil rights movement and the Cold War pushing all sorts of buttons. Take a minute and think about this.
A black woman was the voice of the ship.
A Japanese man was the pilot 20 years after WWII
A Russian was made into a Beatle and put in charge of navigation and weapons during the cold war
The first officer was inhuman and had similarities to Satan inferred at times
Women in the military, in active combat roles
This was huge! But where I think Star Trek then and it and others differ today is that in the original Star Trek these things weren't really explained. They were put there as a given and that's JUST how it was. It wasn't brought up because it said more to the viewer by not. It showed that this was simply acceptable and how things would become. People would stop looking at each other based on their nationality, race, sex, etc and just see them equally as HUMAN.
Now, there were obvious things looking back that weren't touched on. Homosexuality for instance with George Takei. But I think he even said he talked to Roddenberry about it, and it just never got there because the show was cancelled after the third season.
Then The Next Generation expanded on that with things like the Prime Directive. The idea that other cultures and planets are different and we just have to respect that and not interfere except in cases of XYZ. This caused a robust storyline expanding on what is right and wrong, and showing that morality isn't always black or white: that the universe is full of other colors and possibilities.
Fast forward to today. Today feels like a regression of what we've been fighting for. Politics are more polarized than ever, and tribalism is rampant. Things are too white, too male, to cis-gendered etc. People get "offended" over the simplest slight, often times when it's not even intended to be a slight. Speech is becoming less and less free with new terms and conditions for calling this or that "hate speech". Censorship therefore is also increasing.
People have redefined equality with the definition for equity and are upset that everyone's outcome isn't the same. There aren't enough women in STEM, there isn't any (or enough) gay sex in my family sitcom. Why haven't they updated changed this character in the latest reboot of whatever IP to be non-binary gendered, multiracial, pan-romantic, dracosexual? And when those things ARE address, they're not enough.
All of the things that were in Star Trek in the 60s that didn't need to be explained then and could just be accepted now need to be EXPLICITLY explained and have their own story line. And if it doesn't the fans will riot! And if they do, others will call it forced.
--- Conclusion ---
To me, it feels like a combination of problems.
Oversaturation - We have so much of something that we need more and more to get the same enjoyment out of it. What was good 30 years ago is now plebeian.
Entitlement - If we don't get what we think we deserve then it must be shit, or someone is Satan, or worse, Hitler/fascist/marxist/(insert bad name here)
Before we used to not give a shit. Now we give too many shits, and about things that don't really matter. We create new problems out of things that aren't really problems so we can make new solutions. We redefine words and ideas because we can make them "different" rather than coming up with new or better words/terms.
In short, humanity has become bored, entitled brats. We would rather fight over our differences, or redefine things than, create new things and grow.
But what you are describing is something that is permeating ALL media. Fiction, non-fiction, every single facet of society.
So in the original Star Trek, politics played a HEAVY role and almost got the show cancelled a number of times. The south in particular did NOT like that scene of Shatner and Nichols kissing.
Star Trek made a ton of positive contributions to society in the short time since the 60s. I remember Whoopi Goldberg recalling when she saw it as a child on TV and went running to her mother. She said something to the effect of "Mama, there's a black lady on TV and she ain't no maid". I would say this was a VERY positive thing.
Here was a show going on during the Civil rights movement and the Cold War pushing all sorts of buttons. Take a minute and think about this.
A black woman was the voice of the ship.
A Japanese man was the pilot 20 years after WWII
A Russian was made into a Beatle and put in charge of navigation and weapons during the cold war
The first officer was inhuman and had similarities to Satan inferred at times
Women in the military, in active combat roles
This was huge! But where I think Star Trek then and it and others differ today is that in the original Star Trek these things weren't really explained. They were put there as a given and that's JUST how it was. It wasn't brought up because it said more to the viewer by not. It showed that this was simply acceptable and how things would become. People would stop looking at each other based on their nationality, race, sex, etc and just see them equally as HUMAN.
Now, there were obvious things looking back that weren't touched on. Homosexuality for instance with George Takei. But I think he even said he talked to Roddenberry about it, and it just never got there because the show was cancelled after the third season.
Then The Next Generation expanded on that with things like the Prime Directive. The idea that other cultures and planets are different and we just have to respect that and not interfere except in cases of XYZ. This caused a robust storyline expanding on what is right and wrong, and showing that morality isn't always black or white: that the universe is full of other colors and possibilities.
Fast forward to today. Today feels like a regression of what we've been fighting for. Politics are more polarized than ever, and tribalism is rampant. Things are too white, too male, to cis-gendered etc. People get "offended" over the simplest slight, often times when it's not even intended to be a slight. Speech is becoming less and less free with new terms and conditions for calling this or that "hate speech". Censorship therefore is also increasing.
People have redefined equality with the definition for equity and are upset that everyone's outcome isn't the same. There aren't enough women in STEM, there isn't any (or enough) gay sex in my family sitcom. Why haven't they updated changed this character in the latest reboot of whatever IP to be non-binary gendered, multiracial, pan-romantic, dracosexual? And when those things ARE address, they're not enough.
All of the things that were in Star Trek in the 60s that didn't need to be explained then and could just be accepted now need to be EXPLICITLY explained and have their own story line. And if it doesn't the fans will riot! And if they do, others will call it forced.
--- Conclusion ---
To me, it feels like a combination of problems.
Oversaturation - We have so much of something that we need more and more to get the same enjoyment out of it. What was good 30 years ago is now plebeian.
Entitlement - If we don't get what we think we deserve then it must be shit, or someone is Satan, or worse, Hitler/fascist/marxist/(insert bad name here)
Before we used to not give a shit. Now we give too many shits, and about things that don't really matter. We create new problems out of things that aren't really problems so we can make new solutions. We redefine words and ideas because we can make them "different" rather than coming up with new or better words/terms.
In short, humanity has become bored, entitled brats. We would rather fight over our differences, or redefine things than, create new things and grow.
Round of applause for this fucking fantastic post please.
