200
When is season 4 anyway?
(izzydata.xyz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
200 points (94.6% liked)
Risa
6842 readers
12 users here now
Star Trek memes and shitposts
Come on'n get your jamaharon on! There are no real rules—just don't break the weather control network.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I know I might be about to ruffle some feathers, but The Orville is how you do representation right imo. The whole story arc with Topa was beautiful.
Like, something that turned me off of nu-trek was how the representation was handled. It felt pandery to an almost gross extent. Like, Jesus Christ man, it's the year 24-something-something, why are you still acting like being gay is a big deal? OoOoOoOoo oh nooooo, there's gay people WoooOoOooo. And while I don't remember there being spoken pandering in the few episodes I watched, there was something about how the scenes were constructed, the shots were lined up, etc, that felt like they were trying to draw attention to the LGBT members doing LGBT things. Again, it's 24XX, I'm supposed to believe humanity has achieved near-utopia, why am I getting the feeling that you're trying to show me how gay these dudes are purely because they're gay. You don't need to do that. It's 24XX, who the hell is still getting bent out of shape about homosexuality 400 years from now?
The Orville, on the other hand, just kinda... treated it like it was normal. Some characters are gay, some characters are straight, but the show didn't really focus on it; some guys just liked other guys more than gals and vice versa. They treated it like it was normal.
Okay, okay, but I brought up Topa, and Topa's story arc is literally all about Topa's gender problems. How does that not go against my previous complaints? Well, Topa isn't human. Topa is from a male-dominated culture that believes femininity is weakness and should be eradicated via gender reassignment. It's not a human culture, and so it doesn't clash with the idea of humanity having a near-utopia. A human utopia involves everyone being treated equally, so when you imply different treatment, whether through dialog choices or cinematography, it clashes with that idea. But the Moclans don't have a utopia, and so putting emphasis on Topa being female makes sense, especially when it comes to the human crew struggling with the clashing ideas of Moclan forced gender reassignment and the human take on sapient rights. Unlike nu-trek, there's no dissonance there.
I'm pretty lukewarm on Discovery, I've seen all of it but most episodes only once, so maybe I just don't remember it. Who got bent out of shape over Stamets and/or Culber being gay?
teenage redditors
There was a multi episode story arc about a teenager (forgot her name, had a teenage boyfriend and got adopted by Stamets/Cullen) coming out as non binary and choosing they as their pronoun.
It was very heavy handed on drama, whereas if there was any internal consistency, there wouldn't be any "coming out" at all because "staying in the closet" wouldn't be a thing. The whole thing felt like having a Jane Austen dialogue in present Norway.
I would love to be able to say this was a one off occurrence, but pretty much all dialogue is heavy handed, with excessive drama not supported by the fiction. While TNG is rather under acted, DSC is heavily over acted. Out goes technobabble, in comes soap opera.
This never happened. The only time it ever comes up was in a single 27 second conversation with Stamets in S3 which someone else linked. It was never brought up before or after this scene. This is literally the one and only time any LGBTQ issue have ever been discussed in all four seasons of DIS. I'm utterly baffled how this scene got twisted into some lengthy after school special in at least two people's minds in this thread.
The scene that actually happened wasn't even heavy handed. Adira basically states, "I prefer to be called they. I never felt like a she." Stamets literally responds with just "okay" at which point they move on and never bring it up again. I think you need to question why your mind warped it in such an exaggerated, critical way.
Adira seemed very hesitant to tell Stamets, which I thought was silly. I might remember that wrong though.
Duly noted.
A "multi episode story arc"? You mean these 90 seconds? The only way this bit of character and relationship development could be less "heavy handed" would be if it didn't happen at all.
Don't be like that. We're all discussing in good faith here.
Before that happens, Adira spends considerable time with the ghost boyfriend on how would that be received and goes through considerable angst processing it. Before even that it's shown them in considerable anguish to come out to their boyfriend even.
Of that arc, the one thing well executed was the 90 seconds you pointed.
So yeah, most of it shouldn't happen in a welcoming environment in the 25th century. Her adoptive parents had no issue being a gay couple adopting a teenager, in which universe would that teenager ever feel the need to hide their sexuality and insecurities from them? Why the anguish?
It's pretty much established since TNG and DS9 that pansexuality is mainstream. In The Outcast, Riker was involved with a non binary alien; the episode wasn't about the reactions (the crew was absolutely nonchalant about it), with Worf supporting Riker trying to rescue the alien that broke their social customs. You can still send a message with a good in universe justification.
There's no in universe justification for Adira. She doesn't come from a backwards culture, has crazy conservative parents, there's no atavic crewmate around, no aliens taking offense... It's a non conflict. It's bad writing.
To be clear, it's a message that needs to be on TV. But it's a damn shame they did it so poorly when it could easily have been set up to actually create a conflict that would then be resolved. You need in universe bigots to show bigotry being overcomed.
It's not good faith to misrepresent or outright fabricate events. Nor is it good faith to dismiss people who are trying to point that out to you. There were no such lengthy, anguished conversations or multi-episode arcs. I'm baffled how you fabricated entire scenes that never occurred?
That never happened. That 90 second clip is it, and it's actually only 27 seconds of that scene. It was never brought up before or after that conversation. Remember, Adira had amnesia when we first met them and was unable to recall anything about their past.
There was no arc. That clip comprises the entirety of Adira's coming out. Not to be redundant, but it's never discussed before or after this scene.
You misgendered Adira and got the century wrong. Stamets is from the 23rd and Adira is from the 32nd.
Your comment is a moot point because Adira never once says they were discriminated against or fearful of that happening with Stamets (or any of the DIS crew.)
Setting that aside, in general you cannot make blanket statements about individuals unless they're the Borg. People aren't deterministic machines who follow a static program they're unable to deviate from. They all have have different life experiences, cultural background, beliefs, and personalities which result in different levels of enlightenment. It would be more accurate to say that discrimination still exists in the future but it's less likely relative to modern times.
There's plenty of Star Trek episodes that demonstrates discrimination still exists. The Federation and Starfleet discriminate against synthetic life. Data was treated as property and ordered to undergo a life threatening procedure so Stafleet could create a race of slaves. He had to sue in court to win the right to choose is own fate. The Doctor on Voyager had similar experiences. Picard discusses the undercurrent of discriminatory attitudes that hampered the Romulan evacuation effort in PIC. Shapeshifters are often treated in a prejudiced manner and viewed as untrustworthy. Barclay was treated poorly by the Enterprise crew for the crime of not fitting in.
People in the future of Star Trek are still imperfect. They're fallible beings who can engage in irrational behavior like discrimination. A more accurate statement is that discrimination still exists, but it's less likely. Such things work based on probability, and the role enlightenment plays is to make it less common. Outliers exist though, especially in a population numbering in the trillions. All it takes is one bad experience to shape Adira's interactions with others.
Anyway, this pretty much a moot point because Adira never mentions being discriminated against or felling that might happen with the DIS crew.
You misgendered Adira again.
No, you don't actually know this. Those elements of Adira life are never revealed. Adira never states they were discriminated against or feared that's what would happen on DIS. I'm unsure where you're getting this.
If you're referring to their tone or body language, you'd have to be psychic to know it was specifically a result of discrimination. There are lots of logical explanations you're dismissing such as the simplest one—Adira's personality. Conflict of any type (such as correcting your abrasive superior) often makes people uncomfortable. Occam's razor and all that.
Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt I see no problem with that scene. Maybe Adira assumes someone from nearly 1000 years in the past is a bigot? Imagine coming out to someone from 1123. Or maybe Adira did have unaccepting parents or just one single bad experience that overshadowed everything? How do you know more about Adira's life than Adira themself? That's not a good faith argument; that's just confirmation bias.
Cool! Do you have any examples from scenes that actually happened?
I would love to provide with some, but as it stands I'm not about to re-watch a show that didn't entertain me enough in the first time just to make a point on an internet argument.
If you like the show and disagree with me, great. I believe there's another season coming, so enjoy.
That's an awfully roundabout way of saying you're spouting made-up bullshit.
Regardless of your opinions about the storyline, you can address the character by their proper pronouns. Or you can choose to no longer post here.
It wasn't intentional. English isn't my first language and Adira being a female name where I'm from it just slipped out. I did get it right most of the time, but between articulating my thoughts and writing in English, I stumbled here and there.
What is that?
What is what?
That phrase. What do you mean by that.
I mean you can choose to respect people's pronouns or you can choose to no longer be a member of this community. What is unclear?
I was having a really hard time processing the fact that what seemed like open discourse had so suddenly devolved to threats. Do you get a kick from doing that?
Why do you feel like an expectation of a minimal level of respect for other people is a threat?
Now you're twisting my words. Reread what you wrote, there's your answer. This conversation has ran its course.
You're correct. Have a time out.
idk sounds kinda heavy handed on drama
Are you sure it was in Disco? I've seen Disco twice and don't remember a character who was closeted. What episodes?
Seems like he's talking about... Twilight?
Ha! I am very bad with names.
Tbh I might have a unique way of processing fiction, because my brain seems to process it as, "I'm watching a future documentary" or "I'm watching future reality TV" or something. Like, these people have a camera crew or something following them around, so the camera crew is part of the act if that makes sense; so when the camera crew focuses on something, my brain interprets it as being important to the fictional future-history.
As such, while I don't remember anyone actually being upset about them being gay in-universe, the fact that the camera crew seemed to like focusing on them being intimate makes my brain say, "this must be important to 23rd century humans in some way".
Then again, I'm also not super into shows that feel like they spend too much time focusing on romantic relationships, so I might also be more critical that I should be as a result. If you're gonna spend a bunch of time exploring a romantic relationship in a non-romance show, at least make it interesting. Maybe one of them is a cold-blooded lizardman and there's some conflict about the temperature of the crew quarters or something.
Might I also suggest that another possibility is that until very recently, there has been so little gay representation on TV that merely depicting it at all, as Discovery has done, can feel jarring to some.
A friend of mine was complaining about the same thing back on Season 1, but I asked him if it had been a hetero couple shown brushing their teeth together or having a smooch would he have minded and he admitted probably not. We chalked it up to just not being used to seeing that with a gay couple on tv.
Just a thought.
I mean, I guess it's possible. When it comes to my gender and sexuality, I'd say, "it's complicated" because I'm not cishet, it's just... complicated. Additionally I don't tend to enjoy romance in media all that much to begin with, so it's possible that I'm being more critical than I should. It's just that gay relationships in media don't bother me, it's more when it feels "in my face" that I start to question the motivations behind it.
I guess the big thing is that if you're happy with it, then cool! Something about it just felt off to me.
Frankly, the scene that introduced Stamets and Culber together I think was intended to surprise the audience in a different way –– Stamets is a huge jerk the previous few episodes and set up as a semi-antagonist, and that bit shows him in a very different light, as the audience/Burnham starts to thaw on the Discovery crew.
Meh, buffy casualised Willow & Tara existing as Queer a lot better than disc did....and that was a stride
I'm so confused reading this thread, what was less "casual" about the queer v straight characters in Discovery?
That's not a particularly unique perspective, many Trekkies choose to process Star Trek as "historical documents." There's a movie about it.
What I don't understand is why you've assigned this theoretical camera crew the intent of "get the camera on the gay dudes, stat" when "get the camera on the relationship between the two main characters" is a much simpler explanation. There are entire episodes dedicated to Odo & Kira, Paris & Torres or Trip & T'Pol relationship drama. Stamets & Culber screen time pales in comparison, and at least Stamets & Culber have some chemistry.
I'm not a huge fan of relationships in media to begin with (unless it's somehow tied into the plot), so it's possible I'm being more critical and skeptical than I should be. I'm not exactly cishet so I'm not sure that's really it, but as someone else pointed out it's still not super common for gay characters, especially male characters, to be shown as being romantically involved, which can be jarring when you're not used to it. Dunno, it's weird.
That's kinda interesting, do you remember what the movie is called? I might watch it at some point.
Yep, many people still struggle with it. What do you think it would take to change this?