Disclaimer: I have not watched Star Trek Discovery, and unless it’s out on disc one of these days, most likely won’t see it. In spite of the various opinions I have read about it, I am glad there’s serious attention to diversity, we need more of that.
Okay, on to Pete LaBarbera, who is all upsetty about Discovery having a gay couple, portrayed by gay actors. Mr. LaBarbera is opining that this simply isn’t balanced or fair.
LaBarbera discussed the Star Trek news with VCY America’s Jim Schneider on the September 26 episode of the “Crosstalk” program, saying that the show’s decision to include gay characters is another sign that “the homosexual activists are never satisfied, they always want more, more, more.”
Wanting representation is hardly “more, more, more”, Mr. LaBarbera. Quickly, run through your not overused brain, the representation of white straight people. All of history. I’ll wait. This is one show, that is not going to be beamed directly into peoples’ heads or anything. It’s hardly the Queer Revolution, dear.
At the same time, he said, “We have yet to see an ex-gay, a former homosexual prominently portrayed in Hollywood.”
Um, well, first, catch your ex-gay star. I don’t watch bad christian films, but I’m sure this has been covered by one of them. Perhaps you could talk Kevin Sorbo into portraying a ‘former’ homosexual? I’m sure he’d do it, playing the role with all the wooden enthusiasm he brings to his caricatures of atheists. I imagine that the Hollywood number crunchers are fully aware of the fact that trying to make money on a prominent portrayal of a ‘former’ homosexual simply won’t bring an audience. Or money.
“I guess all we can do is not watch Star Trek,” he said, adding that “this sort of propaganda” and “political correctness” is “why Trump won in the first place.”
Yes, that’s fine, don’t watch Discovery. No one will cry about it. As for the rest of your tripe, no, that’s not why the Tiny Tyrant “won”. Corruption is the answer you’re looking for.
When Schneider asked LaBarbera what listeners could do to confront this kind of thing, LaBarbera said, “Remember, the other side never stops fighting. There is a battle between good and evil in this country.” He urged listeners to call their elected officials about enforcing Trump’s announced ban on military service for transgender people and opposing the “very, very dangerous” Equality Act, which “would make it easier for homosexual activists and liberal attorneys to persecute people of faith for opposing this juggernaut which calls itself ‘gay.’”
:near-fatal eyeroll: Oh cupcake…when our mere existence is enough to give you hives, it’s rather difficult to avoid the whole “persecution” shtick. Perhaps you should work on not being so incredibly sensitive, your hysterical tendencies do get all over peoples’ nerves. Go on, go sit in your closet, stick your fingers in your ears, squinch your eyes shut, and whatever you do, avoid Discovery. You’ll be fine.
Via RWW.
I’m no fan of the Star Trek franchise, and hadn’t planned on watching Discovery. But there was nowt else on the other night, and Space Channel was showing the first two. I was actually pleasantly surprised. The characters seemed like real people, unlike TNG and the others. Dunno what they were thinking with the latest (our time, not ST time) version of Klingons though…
And too bad Michelle Yeoh won’t be carrying on. She could’ve easily been the best ST captain so far.
Oh, what happened with Michelle Yeoh? Ah, never mind. Dead. That’s a shame, because if anything made me want to watch, it was Michelle Yeoh.
Dammit! I did a spoiler. Sorry.
Bad spoiler. :( That, I’m sad to hear, but it sounds like it will be worth a good look.
Oh, no worries, Rob! I don’t mind spoilers in the least. And, I really dislike being taken by surprise by stuff like that. Better if I know.
I have a feeling Michelle Yeoh’s character might reappear in flashbacks on the show. No spoilers, but a large part of the focus has been on the main character dealing with the repercussions of the first episode. That kind of gets the whole ball rolling, and they have been using flashbacks in other cases, so it would make a lot of sense for them to do that. One can hope.
Sonequa Martin-Green is well worth watching too. I kind of doubt you’re a fan of The Walking Dead, Caine, but I can say her character is one of my favorites. She’s fantastic. Coming to terms with being raised by Vulcans gives her interesting things to do…. I only wish it wasn’t the standard trope of “everybody who’s anybody has a history with every other important person.” (She’s Spock’s adopted stepsister… So how many Vulcans are there?) I can suspend disbelief about faster-than-light travel for a sci-fi show, but things like that are more difficult.
I agree with Rob that the characters (and dialogue) are much improved compared to past Star Trek shows/movies. Often, the overall plots for the TV series have been rather aimless or almost nonexistent — some parts were less episodic, although even then the outcome was usually fairly predictable. But so far this seems like it’s really going somewhere, since the premise isn’t something as open-ended as “there are people exploring outer space.” My big complaint (not actually big) is that the title music is several awkwardly put-together themes — it could work, but maybe it’s just that the pacing feels too rushed for all that. I think I can manage to watch it despite that.
CR:
Four! Joking aside, I think Yeoh’s death is a good thing, although I wish it wasn’t Yeoh’s character who was killed. In all of ST, the captain is always inviolate, you know there’s never any true danger, what with deaths being reserved for the unimportant and peripheral. Willingness to kill a captain shows they aren’t afraid to go in new directions, and I think that’s a good thing. This whole business of sticking to canon is for the birds, if you ask me. I grew up with the original, and I loved it, but it should have grown and expanded so much more over the course of a half century.
I’m also much more willing to watch because of the sense of real people, being…people. Against the tide of vast love, I could not stand Next Gen. And no, Patrick Stewart wasn’t enough. I could never get past this sense of plasticness in that show -- the scenes like the poker games and such really grated, because they came across to me as very unreal, these weren’t actual people, just actors trying to portray real people, badly. Harry Mudd’s androids would have done a better job. Also, I can’t stand Majel Barret.
When I first heard about the show, I was thoroughly enchanted by Doug Jones being in it, that alone was enough for me. If it is ever put on disc, I’m sure I’ll watch it. One thing that irritated the hell out of me was seeing a complaint about having a character so alien (Jones), you couldn’t read any ‘human’ expression on it, and this complaint was, from all people, PZ. That is such a stupid and petty complaint, it was near unbelievable. If the character had been a giant jellyfish thingy, it wouldn’t have readable expressions either, but people would probably love it. The whole point of alien is ‘not like us’, and even though that’s only partially done here (still humanoid body shape), I don’t think people should be complaining about it.
Well, I know what you mean, but I can believe he’s stupid and petty sometimes. It’s a good thing he’s not paid for film or literary criticism.
Definitely. It’s a rather human thing, to interpret facial expressions. I’m sure PZ knows it isn’t written in stone that all non-humans must do likewise. It’s kind of a weird thing to complain about in this particular case too, because the acting and characterization is very clear. It’s not like there’s an actual problem telling what he’s thinking or doing (at least as I’ve seen him so far). Same with the Klingons. So, it works, and people are just paranoid that it might not work out quite so well, in future episodes that they haven’t seen….?
I think many wanted to join the bandwagon against the show, I guess since they think Klingons should look the same all over the galaxy or something. I don’t know what the deal is, really, but people always need something to complain about. It’s not the Star Trek they used to know, and that’s scary.
To this day I still have not seen a single episode of Star Trek. If I ever watch it, it will be to spite all those who complain it is too SJWay.
Oh, Klingons. Who cares? I remember when klingons were bad make up and fu manchu moustaches! :D
I really don’t get the complaints that Star Trek has been taken away from the anti-social-justice crowd. Star Trek is very much supposed to exhibit a progressive worldview (even though actual Star Trek often falls way behind “Star Trek as it should be”). Based on the three episodes I have seen so far, Discovery comes quite close to the latter.
Arno:
Honestly, that’s the stupidest and most baseless complaint could be. ST has always been SJ based.
From the article in the subject post:
Not that I imagine LaBarbera’s likely to do so (anymore than he’s likely to understand if he did), but he might take a moment to read the pinned Tweet at the top of Mary Robinette Kowal’s Twitter:
There’s also this one I think about every day, from Franklin Leonard’s pinned Tweet:
(Why yes, I did just discover that Twitter exists last year. What gave it away? Also, I’d like to hear more about these horseless carriages that seem to be gaining popularity.)
Back later, in TNET, to ask advice, or maybe just sound some thoughts against the beautiful, resonant chamber.
Still learning,
Robert
Aside:
I fell so madly in awesome with Michelle Yeoh in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon that a chyron question in my head is, “Why isn’t Michelle Yeoh more prominently featured in stuff?”
[checks Planet Earth popular culture] “Needs more Michelle Yeoh” [departs haughtily]
Still learning,
Robert
Star Trek Discovery gets not much right about Star Trek, but diversity is one of the exceptions. Star Trek was always about diversity, in the Star Trek universe AND in real life.
But bigots not getting the point of something is their expected course of action, so these complaints are sadly neither surprising nor new.
Turi1337:
General comment here, not directed at you, Turi. Who cares? This is why I dislike canon crows so very much -- those insisting on canon insist on stagnation. Nothing is ever allowed to expand, grow, and develop the way it would actually do, if it were all real. I’d much rather have growth, in the direction ST always went, in social, diverse, and equal ways.
“”Star Trek Discovery gets not much right about Star Trek””
To me, Discovery seems to be pretty much aligned with precedent:
1) Redesign of the Klingons -- Check
2) Sort-of-sibling of Spock appearing out of nowhere -- Check
3) Weird new technology we never heard of before (and will never hear of again in chronologically later stuff) -- Check
4) Technology works or not subject to plot requirements -- Check
5) …
Diversity in TOS? Hardly.
I mean, they only had a black woman senior officer, in 1967, at the height of the civil rights movement. And a Russian bridge officer, in 1968, at the height of the Cold War.
Not to mention a demonic-looking alien as second in command.
No, diversity was never a Star Trek thing at all.
DonDueed:
That’s not true. Yes, it was very diverse for the time -- and we were still in the cold war at that time, so having a Russian was a big deal. It was a HUGE deal having a black person, and an even bigger one that that person was a woman. Civil rights -- remember when that was happening? Remember when the show aired? The character of Spock scared all the money people, and I’ve brought this up before, but in a promo, his ears were airbrushed to look normal. That character provided a lens with which to view humanity. There was also a Japanese character, when there was still a lot of very nasty bigotry and sentiment against Japanese people, so don’t hand off the ‘not diverse’ bullshit.
It was a struggle to keep the show on air for three fucking years -- what did you expect out of the early ’60s, with them having to fight every fucking step of the way? Have you talked to women who saw that show when they were young? Have you talked to black women who saw that show when they were young? How about Russian or Japanese people? You have a whole lot of privilege spilling about, clean that shit up.
Sorry that my sarcasm was not as obvious as I thought it would be.
DonDueed
I have been saying for decades that irony cannot be conveyed in text-only.
but why would anyone listen to me?
😉🙃💩
I have to say I disagree with both the tone and content of this post. Consider; what exactly do you want out of people who disagree with you? For them to just shut up entirely and never speak or otherwise express themselves? Sounds a bit… fascist.
Here is a guy with some repellent views. But let me sum up what he said:
“I saw this show. I don’t like it because reasons. I guess all we can do is not watch it. If you have objections to other stuff because reasons, contact your elected official about it.”
I literally can’t imagine a more reasonable position than that. That is exactly>/i> what I wish these kind of people would always do. He should be celebrated, not condemned. Avoid shows you don’t like, and go through political channels to effect the change you want. You’d rather he advocated marching through Hollywood with tiki torches or something?
When I was a kid, this kind of person was personified in the UK by Mary Whitehouse (look her up if you’ve not heard of her). A professional busybody informed by her strong Christian faith, her position was “I don’t like this show because reasons. Therefore it and everything like it must be removed from broadcast. Anything I object to must be banned. If you have objections to other stuff, march in the streets and form picket lines”. At the time, people went blue in the face pointing out that if she didn’t like a show, she was free to simply not watch it. This option seemed never to occur to her.
In about 2000, Chris Morris produced a show called “Brass Eye: Paedogeddon”, which satirised media frenzy over paedophiles. Minister for Child Protection Beverley Hughes described the show as “unspeakably sick” but later was forced to admit she had not seen it.
There is a long history of these nutjobs marching in the streets and even issuing death threats (Stewart Lee was hounded over “Jerry Springer The Musical”, the most complained-about show ever on the BBC, after being targetted by a one-man “movement” called Christian Voice).
Peter LaBarbera -- thank you. I find your views repellent and would prefer you changed your mind, but the course of action you advocate is precisely what I would hope you would do, given your views.
sonofrojblake, #22
Well, no, you can’t be disagreeing with the content of the post, because the post isn’t saying LaBarbera should never speak or express themselves. You just made that up.
Here is what Caine actually said: “Go on, go sit in your closet, stick your fingers in your ears, squinch your eyes shut, and whatever you do, avoid Discovery. You’ll be fine.”
Why the fuck should a homophobic bigot be celebrated for throwing a temper tantrum about gay people?
What exactly is Pete supposed to be commended for?
sonofrojblake @ 22:
This is what you think should be celebrated:
That merits a fuck right off from me. You’ve also crossed the ‘don’t be an asshole’ rule. Again. Take a break.
I guess LaBarbera won’t be happy with the Gilligan’s Island reboot either.
Busterggi:
Ummm…? You must remember, I live under a rock.