Barbie has been a summer juggernaut as a cinematic feature despite outrage from the right in the United States. Dean Obeidallah argues that conservative boycotts and backlash only have traction in specific niches where their adherents are the majority of the market.
One wonders if Paramount will take note as they strategically rebrand their streaming offerings. Unfortunately, it seems they’ve been headed in the other direction.
While Discovery led the way in representation across many diverse groups, some of us have been concerned that Picard season three pulled back to more traditional gender roles and an emphasis on white cis-male heroes. SNW has a large female main cast, but the OG female command officer Number One doesn’t seem to be getting much opportunity to show heroic leadership.
Thought this conversation might be less fraught over here at Quark’s.
Interesting point. I do find it curious how Disco in particular caused such a massive brouhaha (even among existing fans) for being overtly sanctimonious when it was SO much quieter about it’s politics compared to the other series. On TOS Kirk would essentially look directly into the camera and demand race-integrated schools. TNG’s preachiness reached after school special levels of eye-rolling half the time. But Disco shows two gay men brushing their teeth and that’s what upsets you?
Another example: I don’t think it was possible for Adira’s five-second coming out scene to be any more concise or unremarkable than it was and yet “shoved down our throats” was a common refrain. What exactly was shoved? I don’t expect reactionary media to be logical, but I also don’t know how anyone who actually watched the show could call it more performatively political than the previous series.
Succinctly well said, and I agree.
Trek has always pushed the boundaries of representation from women and people of color in leading/main roles to mixed race romance, non binary gender identity, lgbt, etc etc.
SNW’s XO has had opportunities to shine and she will have more in the future as her character is explored (I haven’t seen the new season yet tho) Just like the other women, as you said, it’s female heavy cast (which I love, esp. La’an!) so why is this captain being a white male notable here? We see Discovery with female captains, seven is well on her way to being captain (haven’t seen Picard S3 yet) and has flexed her strength throughout Picard. Lower decks follows a ship with a female captain and her daughter who is an incredibly skilled person in a lesbian relationship.
SNW having a man as a captain in my mind does not equate to moving the emphasis back to white cis-male heroes (he is the only white cis-male on the cast mind you, aside from Spock who isn’t completely human. In fact, I find “discovery led the way in representation” as a bit extreme. You’re not seeing by any means, (Relevant video: Star Trek’s First Gay Ship-Mates? The Star-Crossed Romance of Garak & Bashir it is an excellent break down of the many ways all parts of trek has pushed and championed diversity and representation.)
Discovery definitely made bigger strides on this of course and the vid mentions this as well, very necessary and overdue for Trek fans.
Looking at all of the new trek, I see progress but I don’t see the regression. Maybe that’s because I don’t see a problem with mixing old and new in that perspective, given an equal distribution. Male captain heroes are welcome just as much as women captain heroes. Diversity is what makes the Federation strong and that has always been an underlying theme throughout trek.
I don’t see conservative bigots having much impact on trek these days, not like it used to be with Steve fucking berman anyway (fuck you steve). Trek has always been politically progressive
Could you perhaps provide other examples of Trek’s regression/other direction in shifting emphasis back towards cis-white male heroes and trad gender roles? I’m just not sure the statement holds up because SNW has a male captain. Every piece of new trek I can think of has had empowerment and representation for LGBTQ, PoC, and women in general.
Plus there is lore precedent for Spock to serve under Cpt Pike previous to Kirk and all that
Thanks for engaging.
Yes Star, Trek has always been progressive, but Voyager, DS9 and Discovery stand out in the way they have given women, people of colour and the LGBTQ communities competent role models in positions of authority.
I’m not entirely convinced that Paramount is backing off representation, but I do see why fans in several communities are seeking reassurance about how progressive the shows in this era will continue to be after
— Discovery’s fifth season was unexpectedly announced as its final one
– Prodigy was pulled
— Picard season three was positioned and had overtly targeted marketing towards some of the disgruntled, overwhelming male and vocal fan critics of the other new shows and made a pitch for a Legacy show with Picard’s white male son as the future principal character.
More, Paramount+ has pushed forward towards the middle American market with the Yellowstone franchise and live sports while announcing cancellation of shows targeted at women, kids and the LGBTQ community as part of a strategic realignment.
While a menu of Star Trek shows should have room for everyone, including those who directly stated (on YouTube and in brigading of review platforms) that they felt excluded by the strong female, black and LGBTQ representation of Discovery, I can also understand why those who had only previously seen themselves in secondary characters and occasional storylines are concerned when the remaining live action Trek shows are headed by white male leads.
Yes, SNW had to be headed by Christopher Pike, and Spock needed to be there too. However, Number One continues to be overshadowed by other characters, and another male character, Jim Kirk, is frequently fulfilling the role in the stories that a first officer might be expected to. So, even with a strong contingent of female characters, it’s disquieting.
In terms of what’s to come, we should be confident, but somehow we’re not. The truth is that we don’t know what the ensemble for Starfleet Academy will be, or who the principal character will be, but we’re promised the show will be diverse. We also have a Section 31 movie event to come with Michelle Yeoh. The strikes and agitation from some fans against these two greenlight announcements are enough to create genuine uncertainty.
Many of those keen to see Legacy go forward are seeing this as a zero sum game where Academy would need to cede way to it. Whether Legacy happens, and whether it will be focused on Jack Crusher as the principal character is yet to be determined. There’s clearly a large audience hoping for a new 25th century show but the final concept and balance of the ensemble would be the question.
What the Barbie-Oppenheimer dual success opening weekend suggests is that it’s absolutely possible to serve different market at the same time and increase the total audience.
Kurtzman has been incredibly smart and strategic in pressing for a menu of shows to move the Star Trek franchise forward. I just hope that Paramount takes the lesson and keeps going forward with shows that serve all the niches.
This is a great discussion. Thank you.
I’m not sure I agree with the signs of regression though. Are these your actual complaints, or are you merely echoing those you have seen elsewhere? Some of them seem borderline disingenuous.
I don’t think that who is in the position of authority is or should be the method for determining or measuring diversity. If it is, then SNW will always just be a show with the Cis-White-Male captain, which was unavoidable.
The primary cast for SNW is entirely diverse. You can argue there are 2 cis-white-male characters in the main cast, but the Character Spock is a character who has faced discrimination from both sides of his mixed heritage, and is far from a standard male character. I would argue there’s 1-1.5 standard cis-white-male characters in the cast. The closest modern analogy to Spock would be a mixed-race highly neurodivergent cis-male. Neither Spock nor Pike were optional characters for the premise of the show.
Every other character is diverse.
Sure, Una could be given a larger spotlight, but it would likely not be at the expense of Pike… it would be taking away from other members of the diverse cast. Thus far, off the top of my head, she’s been a primary character in 3-4 episodes. With 17 episodes aired, how many would be a proper amount? Like any Star Trek at its best, SNW shines largely because of the ensemble cast. I love Una and can’t wait to see more of her, but that’s also true of the rest of the cast.
Discovery being ended after 5 seasons is disappointing, but I don’t feel that it has anything to do with Diversity.
Yes, Picard S3 was less diverse than other modern Treks, but they gave us what most of us really wanted, and it was one more (likely last) adventure with our old friends.
Again, Prodigy being cancelled sucks, but I highly doubt diversity had anything to do with it. The entire main cast was aliens. Janeway’s primary role on the show was ‘computer’, so I’m not sure she even really counts as an authority figure, but she functioned as one more often than not, so that’s fair… but again, is there any real basis for pointing towards diversity here?
The pitch for Legacy as a new Trek show… this is not anti-diversity just because one of the main characters is cis-white-male, is it? The other two main characters we would know thus far would be Seven and Raffi. This especially doesn’t fit with the argument if the issue with Una is that she’s the diverse character of authority… Jack Picard/Crusher would not be an authority figure, he would be subordinate (highly) to both Seven and Raffi.
“I can also understand why those who had only previously seen themselves in secondary characters and occasional storylines are concerned when the remaining live action Trek shows are headed by white male leads.”
A single remaining live action Trek show is headed by a white male lead. It was entirely unavoidable given the premise (and it’s a PHENOMENAL show).
There are two upcoming shows(hopefully), one with a guaranteed non white male lead, one we have no clue, but a promise for diversity none the less (and no reason to doubt them given their recent track record, IMO). One potential new show, which would have at least one male lead, but once more, not the main character in the position of authority. That show would be guaranteed (unless there’s some serious fuckery) to have a female lead as the captain.
I see nothing concerning about any of this other than the fact that Paramount, like every other streaming service, is beginning to trim fat as we near the end of the expansion phase of the streaming wars. Between that and the Hollywood strikes, I have major concerns about the future of the Trek shows we are hoping for (and the ones we have now), but I don’t see any tendency towards a lack of diversity.
Sorry I’m late to the party. Didn’t realize the conversation was a few days quiet when I started to reply.
@LordTrychon @StillPaisleyCat This might be the worst post I’ve seen on fedi.
Thank you for tagging me and informing me. I will now perform the self-humiliation ritual.
@LordTrychon No need, you have already performed the ritual with your post. :smug1:
Be honest, you’re just upset that there’s no cyclopian representation on the crew, aren’t you?
@LordTrychon That’s right bro. Why would I watch a show with no cute cyclops girls?
No worries. Quark’s is still a small community. The clock isn’t ticking. Engagement is very welcome.
Lower Decks is quite progressive. On SNW some of the characters and ranks were created in the 60’s. I think they’re doing a great job.
Star Trek has been super progressive through this era - Discovery, Lower Decks and Prodigy.
It’s the cancellation of Discovery and Prodigy that’s giving people pause along with Picard season three’s in repentant targeting of the vocally unhappy mostly male YouTuber old fans.
The concern that I seem to be seeing is around whether the announced a corporate shift in strategy at Paramount to target the middle American popular market means less representation and less progressive Star Trek.
The franchise is one of Paramount’s biggest. With Paramount’s its stated streaming strategy reliant on ‘ Franchises, Familiar Faces and Fandoms, how could there not be pressure on Kurtzman to shift the shows towards serving that middle popular demographic.
Put that in the context of an active attempt to sell off BET, pulling back on the MTV brand, and one can appreciate why fans in diverse countries would be uneasy.
I don’t think any of the new Trek shows are progressive at all, and never have been. And neither is the Barbie movie. While they do regularly pay lip service to progressive liberal politics similarly to fan service “remember this guy/this issue/this political stance”, it never feels like more than a marketing campaign let alone something genuine.
Even worse, most of the actual politics have shifted to a US-centric “progressive imperialism” with the main characters basically encouraging CIA-ish regime change campaigns, showing no mercy to their enemies as long as is convenient to the plot, and for some reason constantly circling back to American issues, history and structures, even worse than old Trek that already struggled with that. (Why did Tilly go to something like a Junior High? Are you trying to tell me the American school system was the model for the Federation? Why is Jan 6th at fault for World War III? Why name-drop Elon Musk?) And instead of recognizing sexism, racism and all other forms of oppression as what they are - systemic products of a capitalist economy pitting different parts of the working class against each other - they are portrayed as conflicts between identities and experiences. Sexism means men are oppressors, racism means whites are oppressors, transphobia means cis people are oppressors. While of course they are in no way both equally victims of these systems of oppression, there is no doubt that all working people suffer from those lines of division and they did not pop out of nowhere: they developed out of objective, economic circumstances. Men are not categorically and intrinsically at fault for sexism, capitalism historically profits off of it. Old Trek kind of understood that every bigotry has a material, economic basis. New Trek doesn’t. This is a huge step back in progressiveness.
As someone who happens to be nonbinary and wear plenty of other minority labels, I feel much, much more at home in, say, DS9, than in Discovery, Picard or Strange New Worlds. The trans characters in the latter feel like upper class academic writing room representations of minorities right out of a Hollywood PSA, while people like Dax felt like genuine working class people I know while also being very cool representations of what I consider trans people. Of course, you can have overt and out trans people too, and you can be explicit in what you represent (a good actually gay character instead of constant queercoding like Garashir would have been cool), but it is so sanctimonious and misses the point completely in new Trek. I want a cool character who happens to be queer, not someone who is written explicitly to be that representation so the writers can advertise with how diverse their cast is.
Golden-age Star Trek has never ignored social issues; instead, it always projected the ills of our current-day society onto alien societies or specific groups, and contrasted it to the Federation as the shining example of what to do better. Ferengi showcased how sexism and greed were grotesque, Romulans were a critique of shadow governments and secret services, Cardassians were a critique of fascism and imperialism, and so on and so on. New Trek on the other hand seems hell-bent on making the Federation itself struggle with the exact same societal ills. We don’t have the “good guys” anymore who show us what humanity can be, but instead we have transphobia still being an issue, racism being an issue, sexism being an issue and so on, in this so-called utopia. Until, of course, they inevitably and confusingly praise how far they have come and how the future is without any ills although we clearly see the issues they still face.
What is the message of that? That humanity can never really improve or get away from its bigoted roots. The exact opposite of what I want from a progressive TV show.
One episode of DS9 that recently stood out as amazingly progressive was “Dr. Bashir, I Presume” where we get to meet Julian’s parents; the way they held conversations was incredibly realistic to how non-American, somewhat broken family dynamics work. Word for word, it was almost scary. In contrast, DSC/PIC/SNW dialogue feels painfully screenwritten in a way that is hard to describe; almost like they tried writing for an advertisement or a corporation image building movie. “We at Google believe in an inclusive, interconnected culture where people from all over the world can come together and celebrate diversity” writing style. Utterly devoid of humanity. When I watch new Trek, I feel like I am watching an advertisement for something. Everything’s glowy, glossy, right out of some Hollywood writer’s fantasy, nothing is authentic or anything I can relate to as a regular worker.
