That episode very directly mocks the whole concept of racism in a way everybody will understand and without pointing fingers. It’s ridiculous, why do they care so much which sides the colors are on, come on! Oh, wait…
That’s what Star Trek does best: Examine problems we have through the lens of weird aliens. The audience can then make the connection to the real world.
Writing in the new shows doesn’t really do that as much, partially because they don’t really do alien of the week type episodes anymore (disclaimer: I haven’t seen SNW). So my impression is that they instead more or less directly and somewhat clumsily talk about current-day issues without the extra layer, which also diminishes the positive future aspect Star Trek is supposed to show. Especially Picard felt really off for me because of that.
The claim was that Discovery was too in-your-face about this stuff. I don’t think you can get more in-your-face than that without Kirk turning to the camera and saying, “get it? GET IT?!”
I’d say making an obvious analogy is being less in-your-face than transplanting one of today’s problems onto the Federation’s future society. The layer of fiction is what makes it effective IMO.
Nobody will feel called out by the ridiculously hate-filled half-black half-white aliens, but if one group was black and the other was white it would be a different story. Making them green and purple would also be less effective because people could just map those to human skin tones. That, I think, is what people would find in-your-face. Doing it the way they did on TOS (aliens of the week that literally look the same except mirrored, no clear good/bad side - it’s racism, but not as we know it) puts the ridiculousness of the concept itself front and center, not how the story could be a direct translation of our current issues. And it allows the protagonists to react accordingly as well.
The black-and-white aliens aren’t a subtle analogy but I think it’s smarter than people give it credit for.
Then you’re using a meaning of “in-your-face” that I’ve never seen before because I don’t know how much harder they could have shoved a “racism is bad” message at the audience.
As in, one way is within the story, keeping the Federation utopian (as you’d expect when you watch a Star Trek show), the other not so much. But I’m mostly talking about Picard here, don’t remember too much about Discovery to be honest.
I agree that allegory can be effective in ways that tackling issues head on isn’t, but the opposite is equally true. I don’t think addressing real world issues in a very direct way like DS9 did with Benny Russell or the Bell Riots made it a worse show in any way.
Regardless, as far as I can see, Discovery never went the “Benny Russel” route. They operated more like TOS did - they presented a diverse crew working together while addressing issues like fascism, isolationism, and climate collapse allegorically.
Even then, Trek hasn’t really pushed the boundaries for a good long time. When it hit it big by TNG/TOS Syndication, it ended up being the cash cow, and thus not worth risking for such controversial things.
At most, it’s just been nudging the norm, but the kind of radical shove that TOS had, and nearly got it pulled off the air twice is basically nowhere to be found.
At most, we got one or two token characters or plots, but a lot of it is mostly the norm, or just a little ahead of it.
Compare it to something less established and free to take on more risk, like the Orville. Since it doesn’t have the big brand that networks want to keep reaping without sowing, it gets a lot of flexibility Trek doesn’t really have any more.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
I have only one response to you:
That episode very directly mocks the whole concept of racism in a way everybody will understand and without pointing fingers. It’s ridiculous, why do they care so much which sides the colors are on, come on! Oh, wait…
That’s what Star Trek does best: Examine problems we have through the lens of weird aliens. The audience can then make the connection to the real world.
Writing in the new shows doesn’t really do that as much, partially because they don’t really do alien of the week type episodes anymore (disclaimer: I haven’t seen SNW). So my impression is that they instead more or less directly and somewhat clumsily talk about current-day issues without the extra layer, which also diminishes the positive future aspect Star Trek is supposed to show. Especially Picard felt really off for me because of that.
The claim was that Discovery was too in-your-face about this stuff. I don’t think you can get more in-your-face than that without Kirk turning to the camera and saying, “get it? GET IT?!”
I’d say making an obvious analogy is being less in-your-face than transplanting one of today’s problems onto the Federation’s future society. The layer of fiction is what makes it effective IMO.
Nobody will feel called out by the ridiculously hate-filled half-black half-white aliens, but if one group was black and the other was white it would be a different story. Making them green and purple would also be less effective because people could just map those to human skin tones. That, I think, is what people would find in-your-face. Doing it the way they did on TOS (aliens of the week that literally look the same except mirrored, no clear good/bad side - it’s racism, but not as we know it) puts the ridiculousness of the concept itself front and center, not how the story could be a direct translation of our current issues. And it allows the protagonists to react accordingly as well.
The black-and-white aliens aren’t a subtle analogy but I think it’s smarter than people give it credit for.
Then you’re using a meaning of “in-your-face” that I’ve never seen before because I don’t know how much harder they could have shoved a “racism is bad” message at the audience.
As in, one way is within the story, keeping the Federation utopian (as you’d expect when you watch a Star Trek show), the other not so much. But I’m mostly talking about Picard here, don’t remember too much about Discovery to be honest.
I agree that allegory can be effective in ways that tackling issues head on isn’t, but the opposite is equally true. I don’t think addressing real world issues in a very direct way like DS9 did with Benny Russell or the Bell Riots made it a worse show in any way.
Regardless, as far as I can see, Discovery never went the “Benny Russel” route. They operated more like TOS did - they presented a diverse crew working together while addressing issues like fascism, isolationism, and climate collapse allegorically.
Edit: Of course there was no response. Because there are no examples. It’s just a dog whistle for bigots.
What?
Even then, Trek hasn’t really pushed the boundaries for a good long time. When it hit it big by TNG/TOS Syndication, it ended up being the cash cow, and thus not worth risking for such controversial things.
At most, it’s just been nudging the norm, but the kind of radical shove that TOS had, and nearly got it pulled off the air twice is basically nowhere to be found.
At most, we got one or two token characters or plots, but a lot of it is mostly the norm, or just a little ahead of it.
Compare it to something less established and free to take on more risk, like the Orville. Since it doesn’t have the big brand that networks want to keep reaping without sowing, it gets a lot of flexibility Trek doesn’t really have any more.
You’re not wrong but compared to this era of fascism and education shunning TNG is pretty damn good still.