(December 21, 2020 at 8:35 pm)Belacqua Wrote: But as far as I can see all the Star Treks have worked hard to drive home the main American myth: that of the anti-authority maverick who saves the day through the use of violence. In one of the movies Capt. Picard leaves the Enterprise to disobey orders and save some planet, and when Mr. Data joins him he utters the American militia's favorite line: "Lock and load." I pretty much couldn't stand any more after that.
I did watch a few episodes of the most recent series, because I hoped that with a black female lead things might be better. But she actually disobeys orders to start a whole war, reinforcing the cliche for a new generation. As we see in all the corporate media, increased diversity means that now minorities and women can fill the role of the violent cliche. (Just as Kamala Harris shows that black women can rise in power if they hurt the poor, help the rich, and support the military-industrial complex.)
Nor could I stand the Mandalorian, which is just constant killing, with a cute puppy dog at the center.
Here's the funny thing, in case you don't know the whole story of Gene Rodenberry. GR wanted to create a very intellectual show but the networks didn't get it, so they forced him to basically dumb it down and juice the "cowboy" element. If you watch the ST: TOS episode "The Cage", this was the original pilot. They decided to reuse the footage and did a cut and paste job on it to bring it into the Kirk era. You can see from this episode that the show was less "wagon train to the stars" and more brainy. The network hated all of the elements that made it good, including Spock. So, had they let Gene do what he wanted, I suspect the show would have looked much differently. Even so, most of the many, many episodes of all the various series focus on intelligent issues and ideas. There's enough violence and melodrama to keep the plot moving, but the show isn't based on simple militaristic violence.
Now, you might have misunderstood some things in the Discovery pilot. Michael Burnham (she's a woman), does disobey her captain, but it's because of inside information about the Klingons that her adopted Vulcan father gave her. It was good intel but her captain didn't agree. Still wrong to commit mutiny but she did it for the right reasons at least. I've watched half of the first season so far and this show escapes much of the episodic staleness of all the previous series. It's a fresh look at ST while keeping the cannon mostly intact. It's anything but cliché. If you want to see cliché, watch Enterprise. I've been trying to get through it but it's the most recycled ST ever.
I disagree with the idea that because Burnham is black (she was raised on Vulcan, btw) or female, that she should be exempt from violent or even inappropriate behavior. That's not a realistic view of race. Do I believe that women should get a shot at leading our country or military? Heck yeah, I do. But do I think that because they are women, they won't make a lot of the same mistakes men do? No! They will likely be just as fallible. They're human; they're imperfect. Humans make mistakes. Being female or black or Scots-Irish doesn't exempt anyone from those liabilities. In fact, the biggest mistake Burnham made in the pilot was following her Vulcan logic to far. She should have stopped short of disobeying her superior even if it meant certain death.
Why is it so?
~Julius Sumner Miller
~Julius Sumner Miller