• Prouvaire@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    many of those progressive things are [now] either the norm, or seen as regressive

    Totally agree.

    Part of it might also be that they didn’t see Trek as anything more than “cool space show, with a whole bunch of scantily clad men and women”, and didn’t bother to look any deeper

    Again, I think we’re actually in agreement. If you look past the cool space show and can avert your eyes from William Ware Theiss’ gravity-defying outfits you should be able to discern that Roddenberry’s future is largely socialist, some would argue even communist. Centralised world government, no private enterprise (pun not intended), and by the time TNG aired, even no money. (Note there were references to money in TOS.) Not that I’m trying to imply conservative Trek fans aren’t smart enough to figure this out. But - like the diversity and inclusion in the TOS cast - TOS’s liberalism (social, not economic) isn’t something that the show hit you in the face with. It’s treated matter-of-factly, as backstory or backdrop. Whereas a show like DIS basically grabs you by the lapels and shouts “I’m progressive! I’m progressive!!” (Exaggerating of course, but you get the idea.)

    not unlike Star Wars. It’s just guns, cool ships, and shooting, with the imperialistic allegory being ignored, or gone unnoticed

    Not much of a Star Wars fan, but I assume this is David Brin’s critique?

    • T156@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      But - like the diversity and inclusion in the TOS cast - TOS’s liberalism (social, not economic) isn’t something that the show hit you in the face with.

      It absolutely hit you in the face with it, just in a different way.

      Miniskirts, an icon of feminist freedom of the time, were blatantly worn, Uhura was always in shot, and Sulu and Chekhov were front and centre of the camera when on the bridge.

      Consider the famous Uhura/Kirk kiss scene. That was less of a hit in the face, and more bulldozed with it at light speed, which threatened to get the show pulled in more conservative parts of America (ironically, the same state/s would threaten the same of Arthur, the children’s TV show, over Mr Ratburn’s gay wedding so many decades later).

      You could not be any more flagrant with the rules of the time, and if Roddenberry had had his way, he might have broken a few and put an LGBT character in, since that was part of his plan for TOS.

      Not much of a Star Wars fan, but I assume this is David Brin’s critique?

      I’m not familiar with him, so probably more coincidental than not. But you do see some Star Wars complaining that the new show is “woke” and shoehorns things in, whilst treating the conquering Empire of the first few movies as nothing deeper than that.

      • Prouvaire@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Arrgh! I just wrote a detailed response to your post, acknowledging that you’re completely right about how TOS’s liberalism hit you in the face in a different way, explaining where I was coming from, and ending with how I actually doubt Roddenberry would have put a queer character in the show based on his nixing of “Blood and Fire”, David Gerrold’s early first season TNG script. But kbin ate it. *sigh*

          • Prouvaire@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Roddenberry was showrunner at the time, so surely it would have come down to him to make the call. I suppose it’s possible that Paramount may have put pressure on him, but this is the same Roddenberry who did NOT nix the interracial kiss even though he was told it would cause NBC affiliates in the south to drop the show. I suspect he just may not have felt as strongly about LGBTQ rights as he did about other things. Which I’m kind of equanimous about. Not everyone has to feel equally passionately about every cause.

        • transwarp@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          From what we’ve heard, about the only thing Roddenberry liked about the idea for Captain’s Holiday was that in addition to the heterosexual couples in the background , he could have gay couples. The writer thought it would get the episode dropped, and in Chaos on the Bridge, Berman was very direct about having to stop that in its tracks.

          If it was Roddenberry and not his power tripping lawyer or Paramount who killed Blood and Fire, I expect he was being petty about how Gerrold went from adoring him to arguments and mutual disrespect during the calamity that was TNG season 1.

          • Prouvaire@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I know there’s a perception that Leonard Maizlish was the power behind the throne, but even if he was meddling with the production and causing general mayhem, he was still there at Roddenberry’s behest, especially in the first season.

            You may have a point about Roddenberry spiking Gerrold’s story for personal reasons. Star Trek was never the sole creation of Gene Roddenberry. Justman, Solow, Coon, Fontana and others arguably added as much to the franchise as Roddenberry as he himself did (though I don’t dispute his was the most pivotal contribution). But one gets the sense he wasn’t willing to be as collaborative during TNG as he had been during TOS.

            It’s a shame Gerrold left under such bad circumstances. There’s a lof of his DNA in TNG. Some of the ideas - like the Captain not leaving the ship to go on landing parties (err, sorry, away missions) - came straight out of his book The World of Star Trek.