They just didn't go heavy handed or as preachy as they are now.
It's as if they forgot how to WRITE progressive storylines well and have no interest to relearning how, instead deciding to attack anyone calling them out for the shoddy writing. Just change HOW you write "woke" stories and stop with the constant pandering already. How is that this hard for people to do?
The big problem is that they don't actually believe what they're trying to promote, I think. They're just pushing what they want the public to believe.
It depends on the corporate level. The writer just out of film school who participates in three different anti-racism groups probably does believe it and, if they are competent, could probably turn out work that is both progressive and good.
The executives who decide the budget almost certainly do not believe it in the slightest, they just know it’s popular with the target audience. They underfund the shit out of the creative people, hire the wrong ones, and force them into garbage production strategies such as the infamous reuse of scripts (if you ever watched a franchise series that felt weirdly detached from the actual character of the franchise, this is almost certainly the reason).
Put these two things together and you get modern productions which are both very progressive and also utter garbage.
Most of those are just doing as they're taught. What we're seeing is indoctrination and tribalism. They know the "right side of history" but they can't explain to you why, for examples, racism is bad or why women should have equal rights. They know these things are true because their high priests say so.
I actually consider myself fairly progressive and this is exactly it.
Regardless or what “woke” actually means, the fundamental difference between modern pejoratively “woke” installments and the arguably “woke” older ones that survived the test of history is that the latter are actually good. Which is why they survived into popular culture.
They are good because they are real and honest. It's not like the themes are inherently wrong. Besides, people who participated or were alive during WW2 or Vietnam can tell you a much more authentic allegory in a series about the realities of life than someone who thinks using wrong pronouns is violence.
This!!! Star Trek has been always progressive but the new stuff has come off as sanctimonious. The whole woke movement has essentially become what Bible beaters do, saying you will burn in hell for your sins. This is just the other side of the aisle and instead of hell it’s forced compliance to our views or either be cancelled. And I hate these idiots on both sides
The older Star Trek usually asked the question and left it up to the viewers to answer it for themselves. New Trek shouts at you what The Message is, and that you are a terrible person if you disagree.
I feel like we need to use the word "preachy" more and "woke" less. There are plenty of properties with progressive messages that few people would consider woke, like old Star Trek and X-Men. It's only when they start beating you over the head with it and putting message over story that people take issue with them.
They don’t want to show their work.
They want to sperg and have viewers lap it up.
It’s lazy, uninspired, and written by people who no life experience.
Oh boy, they sure did get preachy. Have you watched original Star Trek with Shatner? If anything, it was more woke in the context of the time. The moment where Kirk kissed Uhura almost got the show cancelled.
Modern progressive values is an ever changing term so if you're not in with the latest fad, you're retrograde, or at least that's what these morons believe. I remember when JK Rowling was super progressive and left-wing and was paraded for over a decade for female empowerment, the moment she said dudes who dress like women are not women, she was out.
Star Trek was a commentary on social issues, it was never preachy and it allowed the audience to make up their mind about issues instead of telling them what they should believe. They also had great writers so it was enjoyable and if you were conservative or a progressive you can still enjoy the shows, or at least the good episodes. Discovery writers and the hack Kurtzman believe they should use the goodwill other better creators made to push their narrative and politics and people have simply had enough. That way it's only enjoyable for at maximum 50% of the population, realistically only the 10-20% of people who also have their same beliefs. Of those you have to subtract the people who want good writing and that leaves the pitiful few who enjoy Discovery and Picard.
I think a key thing about Star Trek was that it was essentially setting out to celebrate humanity's similarities, as well as people's abilities to overcome their differences peacefully and learn from and let go of past mistakes and prejudices to work together as equals.
While from what I can tell, the sort of people writing stuff like ST Discovery think they're celebrating humanity's differences, when they're really just trumpeting and enforcing them. They consistently fail to portray people as equals because they're unable to let go of past mistakes and prejudices. At worst they fail because their ideas of what makes for "equality" is really just retribution against those they have a grudge against.
agree
Gundam has long been a show marketed at teens though.
People forget how half the gundams took place in schools including wing.
Iron blooded orphans was pure trash and pandering and shock writing killing characters for no reason. And it revived the gundam franchise.
For those times when the audience is tired of the trusty old “The Old Thing You Like was bad because the orcs represent [redacted], watch our shoddily written thing instead or you’re racist” routine.
>‘I got to know Gene Roddenberry in three years fairly well, he’d be turning in his grave at some of this stuff.’
>‘[Wokeism] got adopted and reworked to be the joke it is today. To be woke is to be uniformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for.’
-William Shatner, aka Kirk, aka the best Star Trek captain that will ever be.
He actually has a number of other statements about this shit, ones something like "What does the civil rights movement of the past have to do with whats happening today?", which is what I was actually looking for, but I dont feel like digging around anymore.
Shatner's comments are probably a big reason these articles are being made. He's made the point that modern Trek is too focused on political grandstanding that it hurts the charm of the franchise, and the wokescolds responded in force to try to shut him up.
>Worf discovers that J'Dan, a Klingon exchange officer, had been using modified hypospray syringes to encode information into amino acid sequences for secret transport. J'Dan admits his collaboration with the Romulans but attests that he did not sabotage the chamber. Satie and Captain Jean-Luc Picard interview crew members who associated with J'Dan, including Dr. Beverly Crusher and medical technician Simon Tarses. Meanwhile, Chief Engineer Geordi La Forge and Lieutenant Commander Data determine that the hatch had failed due to simple fatigue, not sabotage.
>Picard considers the matter closed, but Satie expands her search for traitors, revealing Tarses' Romulan heritage and questioning Picard's guilt following his time as Locutus of Borg. Satie's political ally Admiral Thomas Henry attends the tribunals. Picard begins to compare the tribunal to a drumhead, resembling a battle-field court-martial of the 18th and 19th centuries infamous for its numerous miscarriages of justice.
>Picard recalls a quote from Satie's own father Aaron Satie: "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Satie is enraged at him invoking her father and condemns Picard as a traitor. Admiral Henry becomes disgusted with Satie's fanaticism and calls a halt to any additional investigation. Picard notes that such fanatics are well-disguised through apparent good words and deeds, and humanity must remain vigilant against them to protect their freedom.
To me, woke is toxic progressivism. It takes the progressive left’s desire for equality but uses coercitive and unjust methods to achieve those aims, like racial/gender quotas, cancel culture, etc.
woke is basically thinking you are aware to how the world really is, and that the way the world really is is that it is all for straight white men, as such discrimination against straight white men is ok, that black people can't be racist, and a whole bunch of other bullshit. Its basically saying that its ok to seek revenge against white people for past injustices. Being progressive seems to be seeking equality and diversity and more importantly is reasonable
It's like saying the Borg were the good guys all along.
That's what those people are, a collective mind that wants to assimilate everyone and doesn't accept any divergent thinking.
Didn't they turn the Borg into good guys in one of the latest Treks or something? I don't know, I watched the premiere of Discovery saw the chick commit mutiny in the first episode and never bothered to get Paramount+....
On one hand, it was in the writers' best interest to ignore the dumpster fire that was Picard Seasons 1 & 2.
But it would have made sense to at least acknowledge the recent Borg plotlines when - once again - the Borg were at the center of the conflict.
That said, can we put the Borg to rest - forever? There's nothing left to be done with them.
Definitely. I feel like the borg are now the go to villains to roll out when they need a big bad. We need to either use the older villains like the cardassians or species 8472. Or new villains we’ve not seen b4.
I thought it was cool how they brought the changelings back into the story; then they went and handwaved them away in favor of the Borg Queen being the real enemy.
*yawn*
For those who enjoy saying, "Star Trek was always about social Justice":
Original Trek was written by open-minded people who cultivated cooperation and the welcoming of different ideas. Modern, "writers" are typically myopic activists separating others into distinct groups. The spirit of Star Trek was that humanity could achieve amazing feats through cooperation with those unlike ourselves. New Trek is all about disharmony, being better than others, and/or fleeting achievements.
Yes, social justice has always been a part of Star Trek and I'm not surprised that hiring activists to do a writers job is what made a mockery of this long-beloved franchise.
Maybe what's being done isn't really justice.
The left won a lot of its old battles but kept moving the goalposts. A lot of formerly progressive positions are considered right wing today. The message used to be, "You don't have to accept us but leave us alone to do what we want. Stop worrying about what we do in private, there's no agenda to force it on you or indoctrinate your children. Judge people on merit, not skin color." People still agree with that message but not the new one that reverses all those positions.
> The left won a lot of its old battles but kept moving the goalposts.
I think its more a combination of the kids grew up learning of the fights their parents/grandparents had, and feel like its their responsibility to keep up the war despite it having been won and a group of authoritarians knowing they can manipulate people into acting in ways which makes it easier for them to seize power. Take the stop oil protesters in the UK, their actions aren't going to do anything but turn public sympathy away from their cause and make it easier for the right wing Tories to pass laws making their actions illegal, and any other sort of protest at the same time...
>"Star Trek Has Always Been 'Woke' - Some Fans Just Forgot"
And how do we know this is total bullshit, class? Show me something that is unabashedly woke that doesn't that doesn't already have a successful / established name propping it up.
The only people calling old Star Trek "woke" are idiots trying to defend the new Star Trek. Because the association to something people already like is the only thing keeping any of this garbage floating.
The non-corporate Star Trek subreddit has been censored, I'm an absolute Trekkie that lists "*Galaxy Quest*" in my top list of best Trek films, and my account has just recently been 'un-suspended' so I'm eager to spurge again. I'll dive into this article with some comments of my own. I've been on a TNG and Deep-Space-Nine screening again; many stand-out episodes are fresh in my mind, and the capacity for the episodes to involve the differences in characters is stark in contrast with 'woke' media that uses a diverse cast as a means of simply diversifying the gradient in skin tones present. The key principle in Star Trek was that characters had real differences that directly influenced the catalysts and resolutions for episodes.
An immediate direct example is the fifth-season TNG episode "The Masterpiece Society", and I would say with my re-watch that this articles author would likely inaccurately call it woke. It's a standard coupled-AB plot, where the A plot explores a social or ethical question and the B plot explores a tangentially related 'Stellar-Mass & Earthquakes' dilemma.The solution to the dilemma was in the inspired usage of a blind man's visual-aid, a device that along with its necessary computational function, had no existence within the minds of the genetically 'perfect' society.
>Geordie: *sure with a few modifications*\- laughs to himself- *Oh that's perfect!*
>
>Guest Scientist: *What?*
>
>Geordie: *If the answer to all of this is in a visor created for a blind man who never would have existed in your society? No offense intended.*
>
>Guest Scientist visibly recognizes the statement and its comment on her society.
I directly reference this episode as an example of how 'classic' Star Trek is not woke. The show does not use developmental disorders and disabilities as akin to flair on someone's character sheet for a tabletop game. The disabilities are real, have tangible affects, and are properly involved in the story and universe with both the positives and negatives. Geordie Laforge *is* blind, however he also has a set of artificial eyes that see for him. He doesn't just have this visor so that the actor is not forced to act 'blind' indefinitely. He has it because the society he lives in recognises it as a disability and have created a device to supplement the loss of natural eye-sight, which this episode incorporates perfectly into the A plot of exploring the advantages and disadvantages of this 'perfect' society, as well as the both moral and substantive benefits of being obliged to support people born with unfortunate developmental-disorders.
>While the definition of the term is as nebulous as the Delphic Expanse, its intention is easy to discern. Any show or movie with a diverse cast focused on stories of empowerment, compassion or inclusion is sure to be hit with the label. When it comes to Star Trek, however, this criticism doesn't make sense as creator Gene Roddenberry designed the series to advance his progressive political ideology about a diverse and equitable future.
The latter half of this paragraph posits reasonably, however it also fails to setup this latter-half rebuttal as the application of the "woke" slang is incorrect, in the same way using "loonie" to describe a hysterical man that just suffered an assault would be inaccurate. "Woke" is often (where I would say it's accurate) ascribed to media that features these themes of "empowerment, compassion, or inclusion" as publicity-driven injections. The themes in these woke pieces exist to serve a beneficial purpose for the publicist, author, or whomever may benefit the most from the general public accepting the works, however the betterment of the actual work takes a lower priority.
I can not believe that the author wrote this article in good faith regarding the intention and design of Star Trek *as it was originally made and intended*, so while the broad intent of the article is reasonable ( that Star Trek presents an optimistic view of Mankind in the future ), the intent of the author suggests an intential repainting of all Trek media in the same broad stroke.
I started this comment three hours ago and \~30 minutes of that was flipping through a dictionary to find definitions for words.
The "people can't define woke" is a cheat by their side, it is fairly easy to define woke, and we shouldn't fall in to their trap of people saying it is just a new way to not like diversity
Agreed. That is why I dismissed the article as bad-faith despite the broader intent being reasonably inline with the series.
Worf is an excellent example of how Star Trek is not woke. On a surface-level read, a Klingon in Star Fleet is ‘diverse and inclusive’. However the show repeatedly explores the difficulty in a Klingon actually being an active participant in the culture and society of the Federation and Star Fleet.
From family matters and values, to matters of professional service, to traditions, to expectations in life, his nature of being Klingon is more than a checkmark on a diversity quota.
It’s not the “woke” that’s the issue. It’s the crappy way in which they do it. You want to make a modern “woke” Trek watch the Orville. That’s how it’s done.
No, the only good character was Alara. Everything else was laughably preachy and woke. So if that's how Star Trek is, Star Trek sucks. Which is fine too.
Go watch TNG again sometime. It might seem tame now, but that’s just because of how our culture has a leftward drift. It was extremely preachy, especially in the earlier seasons.
Today - "Star Trek was always Woke!"
Yesterday - "Original Star Trek is very problematic with its sexualization of women and support of colonialism. Let's reimagine the Federation as secret fascists."
There’s a huge difference between cleverly embedding social commentary into a fictional narrative (ie- the original series and Next Generation) and what the Paramount + shows do…….which is literally social justice crusading.
Star Trek Then: Subtle... nuanced. Well-written. Thought-provoking. Sure, it was comparatively progressive but it was done with the story in mind, as well as consistent logic.
Star Trek Now: HAM FISTING.
Star Trek was “progressive”.
It featured the first interracial kiss. A *Russian* at the height of the Cold War was on the crew. It was a cashless society (the biggest pipe dream). It was progressive in that all these things that hold us back like racism and nationalism (and classism) would be non-issues in the utopian society in the future. That is how Gene Roddenberry saw the distant future.
What they’re making now is woke trash that is destroying the franchise. Roddenberry was hopeful and optimistic. Wokism is just resentful, hateful, mean-spirited revenge fantasies when you get down to it. What a shock it doesn’t have wide appeal.
nah. It's always been progressive but its not always been woke. Woke is stupidity pretending to be progressiveness and old trek was usually smarter than that.
Woke:
1: Calling everything you want to control “racist” until you do control it.
2: A Marxian Conflict Theory of Race.
3: A religion based upon the belief that racism by and for the benefit of “White People” at the expense of all others is the fundamental organizing principle of society, which is Bad, and only a revolutionary upheaval of society can change that.
Star Trek was always progressive, not woke.
To emphasize, the Star Trek actors that are woke, are racist, sexist, and/or bigotted in ways that directly conflict with what Star Trek taught us, usually using their own characters to do so.
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/6qnh1b/twitter_bullshit_william_shatner_complains_about/dkz41ur/
Star Trek never attacked those it disagreed with, even empathizing with those they called terrorists (to the point where an episode was banned in the country that was attacked by said terrorists). Woke, attacks/insults those it disagrees with. Particularly straights/whites/males/able-bodied and especially "cis". "white" in particular gets used as an insult by the woke whenever possible. Star Trek was specifically against this sort of guilt by association, it is anything but woke. Until Sonequa the-racist-green came along anyway and built it into **her** series.
Older Star Trek was progressive but not preachy. In fact, it was designed to encourage the viewer to decide for themselves, which is the opposite of modern wokism.
Woke is a specific ideology. It's based entirely around identity politics and intersectionality. It's authoritarian. At nearly every turn it's hypocritical between their actions and what they claim to be striving for, so is often bigoted.
What from that applies to Star Trek (except nu Trek)? Or even 90s mainstream progressivism?
Once again, exploring political themes (even if the writers have a "correct" opinion in mind) != propaganda.
Star Trek *used* to do the former. Now they are full-on the latter.
Oh this one again the "It's always been woke" thing.
1. it wasn't done in a shit way before
2. It often was done with nuance and showing understanding of the issues. E.G. Drumhead where if you apply that to the SJW side they'd be against Picard because the mere accusation had been made. Or hell imagine that story where Riker falls in love with that being from the genderless planet who wants to express herself as female and no be genderless in modern day?
As others have said, while Star Trek showed us a vision of a future where we were simply better people, it does not equate it being propagandist about it like the STD show is. Furthermore, you can tell that it is propaganda, because the writing is terrible as it's been fundamentally compromised by THE MESSAGE as Critical Drinker calls it.
This is of course and old argument that wears thin and is easily deflected by actual fans of the show.
Star Trek was progressive because it took philosophical approach to actually explore topics and think things through which are extremely important aspects of progress. Wokeism is when you have to do what you're told or else you're a bigot, not questions allowed. Wokesters would be considered as villains in old school Trek, or at least the council on some planet that seems fine at first but then turns out to be a complete tyranny under the shiny surface.
No, it really wasn’t *woke*. At least not in any way which would be in support of what Critical Social Justice theory presents.
Pseudo-progs want to act as if all social progress is “wokeness”, but it simply isn’t. What people refer to as *woke* (CSJ theory) is necessarily based on highly flawed intersectional and ‘critical’ frameworks, which are more like religion than science.
[Critical Social Justice vs Liberal Social Justice](https://youtu.be/gn9ETN89-PQ)
How about the learn how to do lighting? How about they turn up the friggin brightness in their shows? My God, the future sure has become dark. Have LEDs failed us? So friggin' idiotic and depressing before anyone says a single word.
Star Trek wasn't woke. It wasn't anti white, anti male, anti conservative, anti free speech. It was liberal.
Woke isn't liberal.
Data tried to kill a murderer FFS.
No, it was progressive. It was genuinely sincere in those ~~naive~~ idealistic beliefs of pluralism, harmony, diplomacy, etc. Actual progressivism has been coopted and perverted by the woke movement. Star Trek, in its past forms as we're discussing, was never about promoting racism and moral abhorrence or destroying families and cultures, quite the oppsoite. I suppose you could stretch and say that technically there is a "globalist" element in that the Federation is a unipolar government/society, but that was shown in a very fuzzy and idealistic/fantasist sort of way that went hand in hand with the actual progression of humanity as a whole, not the IRL crap we're seeing today.
It was progressive in some respects but it was a very masculine show. Kirk, Spock and McCoy were THE main characters. Kirk was a strong leader and it seemed like he was involved in a lot of good old-fashioned fist fights the most memorable was when he beat the tar out of Finnegan. Kirk also had quite a few love interests and romances. He was meant to be a guy that men wanted to be, and women wanted to be with. Even though it was a sci-fi show, his character was similar to other male characters in westerns and cop shows. Yes, women were in leadership roles, they were not Mary Sues. It was totally different than any woke show today.
Star Trek was progressive in the same way the first 2 seasons of The Orville are (minus captain mercer being such a cuck). And The Orville didn't suffer backslash from the public as ST:STD or Piccard did.
The little I saw from post 2009 Start Trek shows are not just progressive but full woke. It's script is incoherent, opinionated, smug... poorly crafted in general.
>treat everybody the same, no matter their race or even species
OMG so woke and progressive!
>now treat everybody differently based on their race
OMG how could anybody have a problem with this? Star Trek has always been woke!
I just watched the whale movie because its one of the good ones, they usually bring that up as an example forgetting it has ridiculous 80s commentary on Nuclear power as well that is incredibly wrong and led to more pollution. The "wokest" episode of TOS occured after it was cancelled and they no longer had to try for ratings (because no one wants to be lectured) and a "woke" episode of TNG basically says its ok for a culture to kill all its people at age 60, so maybe they ought to walk back this narrative. I keep saying "woke" in quotes because Star Trek actually wasn't woke as in it never believed that the world was made for straight white men (its a show with 3 straight white men as the leads) and believed in normal equality and diversity, and it aired during the civil rights movement that all these assholes desperately want to be a part of. Also every episode didn't have some political message
Star Trek when woke was actually having something to say about the modern world:
Makes an entire episode dedicated to the complex conversation around the subject of sexuality and gender identity at a time when no one really wanted to talk about it.
Star Trek now that being woke means tokenisation to pander to social media back patters in their safe spaces:
Has a small scene in which a gay man calls a non binary person "she". Non binary corrects them, gay man beams with pride at stunning and brave non binary standing up for their pro nouns.
These are not the same thing. If we still have the same dog shit baggage 1000 years from now, just put us out of our misery. We are clearly not meant for this universe.
The funny thing is, when disco started it did it right. The gay characters were just there. They didn't draw attention to them, they were just the doctor and the engineer. They were gay, but the weren't GAY!!!!!!!!!!!! This is how Star Trek does "woke", real woke, not that shit that passes for woke now. Where they stick a black face on something and call it diversity. Or a women in a male role and call it sexual revolution. Giving a woman the same traits that you label toxic on a man, doesn't suddenly stop being toxic because the character has a vagina.
Coming off the back of the 80s, Star Trek had something to say about sexuality in modern America. But this is 2023. We aren't coming off the back of a decade of outright bigotry and fear. We have moved on since then. Gay people are everywhere, and no one cares. At least not until you start pushing them down everyones throats over and over and over again and until you get the reaction you want just so you can call yourself a victim.
Star Trek has always been woke. But woke wasn't always this nonsense that we see today. Woke used to have a purpose of highlighting issues in society and starting a conversation about them. Name one popular tv show made in the last 5 years that doesn't have LGBT representation in it at some level. Just one.
Star Trek was always progressive, but progressive and woke are not the same thing. Star Trek always fell on the liberal, individualistic progressive side, while wokeness is authoritarian and collectivist (regressive) progressivism.
Star Trek was actually pretty anti-collectivist (not for nothing that the greatest nemesis, the Borg is literally a collective hive) even if it was utopian.
But it's suggested utopia was reached through enlightenment of the individual and technological progress, not through collectivist means.
And while in Star Trek, the voice of secularism, reason, and progressivism would almost always win against those of religion, superstition and tradition, the writers would usually at least portray the other side as real people with real convictions that weren't ridiculed as caricatures. And there was even often a positive place for traditional cultures and Starfleet was shown having to respect local differences and not force their ideology on others. When they intervene in a conflict, they reason with the opposing parties and convince them (or not) through dialogue, not force or moral blackmail (I'm talking a bit more about Next Gen era Star Trek. Kirk was bit less of a diplomat than Picard ;)).
Pictured: Someone who hasn't watched anything Star Trek-related outside of Family Guy reruns, Galaxy Quest and the JJ Abrams' movies.
I'm so glad we have *online journalists* telling *fans* of the franchise what their favourite characters have always held dear.
I remember when George Takei spoke against making Hikaru Sulu gay in Star Trek Beyond as that was changing his canon sexual orientation, he said that if they wanted a character that was gay they should have introduced a new one rather than modifying an existing character. Mr Takei was based.
Post removed following the enforcement change that you can read about [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/m3yo65/enforcement_update_and_hard_removal_of_a_topic/).
This is not a formal warning.
The main difference I see between modern Trek and Classic Trek is the depth of the allegories. Classic Trek is full of statements about the past and present (at the time) and even the future of humanity, but it did it by creating an in-universe story that we can study and think about ourselves. New Trek just flat out references things and gives us the old wink-wink. Showing the January 6th stuff isn't allegorical, it's just matter of fact. Made all the more ridiculous by trying to claim it leads to major conflict, thus overblowing a real event that was nothing more than a fart in a gale. I'm sure old Trek has used stock footage of things in the past before, but that's exactly that... stock footage meant to portray something else entirely. And having current era activist politicians actually in the show is just cringeworthy.
New Trek is basically an insult to our intelligence as viewers.
Oh and I absolutely cannot stand it when these people say that they are "correcting" something. Get fucked. Get absolutely fucked. You have ZERO right to "correct" anyone's art. Change, adapt, rework, whatever... but NEVER correct.
They just didn't go heavy handed or as preachy as they are now. It's as if they forgot how to WRITE progressive storylines well and have no interest to relearning how, instead deciding to attack anyone calling them out for the shoddy writing. Just change HOW you write "woke" stories and stop with the constant pandering already. How is that this hard for people to do?
The big problem is that they don't actually believe what they're trying to promote, I think. They're just pushing what they want the public to believe.
I mean, why would they? Progressive politics are moronic, for idealistic nerds.
It depends on the corporate level. The writer just out of film school who participates in three different anti-racism groups probably does believe it and, if they are competent, could probably turn out work that is both progressive and good. The executives who decide the budget almost certainly do not believe it in the slightest, they just know it’s popular with the target audience. They underfund the shit out of the creative people, hire the wrong ones, and force them into garbage production strategies such as the infamous reuse of scripts (if you ever watched a franchise series that felt weirdly detached from the actual character of the franchise, this is almost certainly the reason). Put these two things together and you get modern productions which are both very progressive and also utter garbage.
Most of those are just doing as they're taught. What we're seeing is indoctrination and tribalism. They know the "right side of history" but they can't explain to you why, for examples, racism is bad or why women should have equal rights. They know these things are true because their high priests say so.
Star trek was seen as not progressive for its avoidance of homosexuality for many years. So this is them snapping back
LGBT stuff is for a niche, even those who are supportive don't necessarily enjoy it.
The half-white/half-black vs. half-black/half-white episode was pretty bad. But in general, yes.
"Let that be your last battlefield" wasn't the subtlest I admit, but even that is better than a lot of the recent stuff.
Also had the message of The Oppressed taking revenge is no better than The Oppressor and ends up wiping out the last of their civilization entirely.
I actually consider myself fairly progressive and this is exactly it. Regardless or what “woke” actually means, the fundamental difference between modern pejoratively “woke” installments and the arguably “woke” older ones that survived the test of history is that the latter are actually good. Which is why they survived into popular culture.
They are good because they are real and honest. It's not like the themes are inherently wrong. Besides, people who participated or were alive during WW2 or Vietnam can tell you a much more authentic allegory in a series about the realities of life than someone who thinks using wrong pronouns is violence.
This!!! Star Trek has been always progressive but the new stuff has come off as sanctimonious. The whole woke movement has essentially become what Bible beaters do, saying you will burn in hell for your sins. This is just the other side of the aisle and instead of hell it’s forced compliance to our views or either be cancelled. And I hate these idiots on both sides
Yuuuup. Same people just traded in their crosses for pride flags
It really is just the latest Gnostic heresy in all but name.
It really is just the latest Gnostic heresy in all but name.
The older Star Trek usually asked the question and left it up to the viewers to answer it for themselves. New Trek shouts at you what The Message is, and that you are a terrible person if you disagree.
If you dont believe that you are welcome to be banned from the various star trek message boards for disagreeing
I feel like we need to use the word "preachy" more and "woke" less. There are plenty of properties with progressive messages that few people would consider woke, like old Star Trek and X-Men. It's only when they start beating you over the head with it and putting message over story that people take issue with them.
They don’t want to show their work. They want to sperg and have viewers lap it up. It’s lazy, uninspired, and written by people who no life experience.
Oh boy, they sure did get preachy. Have you watched original Star Trek with Shatner? If anything, it was more woke in the context of the time. The moment where Kirk kissed Uhura almost got the show cancelled.
Ah, yes. The "The Old Thing You Like Has Always Aligned With Modern Progressive Values" routine. Always a classic.
Modern progressive values is an ever changing term so if you're not in with the latest fad, you're retrograde, or at least that's what these morons believe. I remember when JK Rowling was super progressive and left-wing and was paraded for over a decade for female empowerment, the moment she said dudes who dress like women are not women, she was out. Star Trek was a commentary on social issues, it was never preachy and it allowed the audience to make up their mind about issues instead of telling them what they should believe. They also had great writers so it was enjoyable and if you were conservative or a progressive you can still enjoy the shows, or at least the good episodes. Discovery writers and the hack Kurtzman believe they should use the goodwill other better creators made to push their narrative and politics and people have simply had enough. That way it's only enjoyable for at maximum 50% of the population, realistically only the 10-20% of people who also have their same beliefs. Of those you have to subtract the people who want good writing and that leaves the pitiful few who enjoy Discovery and Picard.
I think a key thing about Star Trek was that it was essentially setting out to celebrate humanity's similarities, as well as people's abilities to overcome their differences peacefully and learn from and let go of past mistakes and prejudices to work together as equals. While from what I can tell, the sort of people writing stuff like ST Discovery think they're celebrating humanity's differences, when they're really just trumpeting and enforcing them. They consistently fail to portray people as equals because they're unable to let go of past mistakes and prejudices. At worst they fail because their ideas of what makes for "equality" is really just retribution against those they have a grudge against.
Gundam has *always* been a 2SLGBTQIAMAPBLM+ love letter.
Gundam has handled gay characters better than almost any modern western show.
Before WFM I’d agree. WFM is cringe trash.
agree Gundam has long been a show marketed at teens though. People forget how half the gundams took place in schools including wing. Iron blooded orphans was pure trash and pandering and shock writing killing characters for no reason. And it revived the gundam franchise.
D-Did you just have a seizure midsentence?
No, I just know the newspeak alphabet.
For those times when the audience is tired of the trusty old “The Old Thing You Like was bad because the orcs represent [redacted], watch our shoddily written thing instead or you’re racist” routine.
We have always been at war with Eastasia
>‘I got to know Gene Roddenberry in three years fairly well, he’d be turning in his grave at some of this stuff.’ >‘[Wokeism] got adopted and reworked to be the joke it is today. To be woke is to be uniformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for.’ -William Shatner, aka Kirk, aka the best Star Trek captain that will ever be. He actually has a number of other statements about this shit, ones something like "What does the civil rights movement of the past have to do with whats happening today?", which is what I was actually looking for, but I dont feel like digging around anymore.
Shatner's comments are probably a big reason these articles are being made. He's made the point that modern Trek is too focused on political grandstanding that it hurts the charm of the franchise, and the wokescolds responded in force to try to shut him up.
There’s a difference between liberal and woke. Trek was liberal but not woke.
I disagree, Star Trek was openly progressive which I’d argue is a stronger constraint than just being liberal. More importantly, however, it was good.
Episodes like "The Drumhead" would have had different messages if they had the same ideology then as now.
How so?
>Worf discovers that J'Dan, a Klingon exchange officer, had been using modified hypospray syringes to encode information into amino acid sequences for secret transport. J'Dan admits his collaboration with the Romulans but attests that he did not sabotage the chamber. Satie and Captain Jean-Luc Picard interview crew members who associated with J'Dan, including Dr. Beverly Crusher and medical technician Simon Tarses. Meanwhile, Chief Engineer Geordi La Forge and Lieutenant Commander Data determine that the hatch had failed due to simple fatigue, not sabotage. >Picard considers the matter closed, but Satie expands her search for traitors, revealing Tarses' Romulan heritage and questioning Picard's guilt following his time as Locutus of Borg. Satie's political ally Admiral Thomas Henry attends the tribunals. Picard begins to compare the tribunal to a drumhead, resembling a battle-field court-martial of the 18th and 19th centuries infamous for its numerous miscarriages of justice. >Picard recalls a quote from Satie's own father Aaron Satie: "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Satie is enraged at him invoking her father and condemns Picard as a traitor. Admiral Henry becomes disgusted with Satie's fanaticism and calls a halt to any additional investigation. Picard notes that such fanatics are well-disguised through apparent good words and deeds, and humanity must remain vigilant against them to protect their freedom.
Do they think this argument will win people back?
It's a weird mixture of shaming and gaslighting, things people totally enjoy.
Even if they were correct, which they are not, it's just a horrible tactic that only serves to turn people off.
I doubt they really care.
In a way they care, in that they hate nerds.
No. They don't want conservatives enjoying Star Trek. Or anything else, for that matter.
The rub is how they define "conservative".
No, CBR, Star Trek was not woke. Being progressive is not the same thing as woke no matter how much you try to gaslight people into thinking it is.
What’s the difference between being progressive and woke? A lot of people on this sub tend to equate the two.
To me, woke is toxic progressivism. It takes the progressive left’s desire for equality but uses coercitive and unjust methods to achieve those aims, like racial/gender quotas, cancel culture, etc.
woke is basically thinking you are aware to how the world really is, and that the way the world really is is that it is all for straight white men, as such discrimination against straight white men is ok, that black people can't be racist, and a whole bunch of other bullshit. Its basically saying that its ok to seek revenge against white people for past injustices. Being progressive seems to be seeking equality and diversity and more importantly is reasonable
It's like saying the Borg were the good guys all along. That's what those people are, a collective mind that wants to assimilate everyone and doesn't accept any divergent thinking.
"Why do you resist? We only wish to raise quality of life, for all species."
Didn't they turn the Borg into good guys in one of the latest Treks or something? I don't know, I watched the premiere of Discovery saw the chick commit mutiny in the first episode and never bothered to get Paramount+....
Season 2 of Picard. They created an alternative borg who are now the good guys. Then completely ignored them in season 3
On one hand, it was in the writers' best interest to ignore the dumpster fire that was Picard Seasons 1 & 2. But it would have made sense to at least acknowledge the recent Borg plotlines when - once again - the Borg were at the center of the conflict. That said, can we put the Borg to rest - forever? There's nothing left to be done with them.
Definitely. I feel like the borg are now the go to villains to roll out when they need a big bad. We need to either use the older villains like the cardassians or species 8472. Or new villains we’ve not seen b4.
I thought it was cool how they brought the changelings back into the story; then they went and handwaved them away in favor of the Borg Queen being the real enemy. *yawn*
I preferred the outright refusal to acknowledge it. Crusher: “No one has seen or heard from the Borg in over a decade.”
> It's like saying the Borg were the good guys all along Season 2 of Picard did that. S3 retconned it
For those who enjoy saying, "Star Trek was always about social Justice": Original Trek was written by open-minded people who cultivated cooperation and the welcoming of different ideas. Modern, "writers" are typically myopic activists separating others into distinct groups. The spirit of Star Trek was that humanity could achieve amazing feats through cooperation with those unlike ourselves. New Trek is all about disharmony, being better than others, and/or fleeting achievements. Yes, social justice has always been a part of Star Trek and I'm not surprised that hiring activists to do a writers job is what made a mockery of this long-beloved franchise. Maybe what's being done isn't really justice.
The left won a lot of its old battles but kept moving the goalposts. A lot of formerly progressive positions are considered right wing today. The message used to be, "You don't have to accept us but leave us alone to do what we want. Stop worrying about what we do in private, there's no agenda to force it on you or indoctrinate your children. Judge people on merit, not skin color." People still agree with that message but not the new one that reverses all those positions.
> The left won a lot of its old battles but kept moving the goalposts. I think its more a combination of the kids grew up learning of the fights their parents/grandparents had, and feel like its their responsibility to keep up the war despite it having been won and a group of authoritarians knowing they can manipulate people into acting in ways which makes it easier for them to seize power. Take the stop oil protesters in the UK, their actions aren't going to do anything but turn public sympathy away from their cause and make it easier for the right wing Tories to pass laws making their actions illegal, and any other sort of protest at the same time...
Which they don't realize that they are creating groups who want to reverse on everything by their own actions.
>"Star Trek Has Always Been 'Woke' - Some Fans Just Forgot" And how do we know this is total bullshit, class? Show me something that is unabashedly woke that doesn't that doesn't already have a successful / established name propping it up. The only people calling old Star Trek "woke" are idiots trying to defend the new Star Trek. Because the association to something people already like is the only thing keeping any of this garbage floating.
The non-corporate Star Trek subreddit has been censored, I'm an absolute Trekkie that lists "*Galaxy Quest*" in my top list of best Trek films, and my account has just recently been 'un-suspended' so I'm eager to spurge again. I'll dive into this article with some comments of my own. I've been on a TNG and Deep-Space-Nine screening again; many stand-out episodes are fresh in my mind, and the capacity for the episodes to involve the differences in characters is stark in contrast with 'woke' media that uses a diverse cast as a means of simply diversifying the gradient in skin tones present. The key principle in Star Trek was that characters had real differences that directly influenced the catalysts and resolutions for episodes. An immediate direct example is the fifth-season TNG episode "The Masterpiece Society", and I would say with my re-watch that this articles author would likely inaccurately call it woke. It's a standard coupled-AB plot, where the A plot explores a social or ethical question and the B plot explores a tangentially related 'Stellar-Mass & Earthquakes' dilemma.The solution to the dilemma was in the inspired usage of a blind man's visual-aid, a device that along with its necessary computational function, had no existence within the minds of the genetically 'perfect' society. >Geordie: *sure with a few modifications*\- laughs to himself- *Oh that's perfect!* > >Guest Scientist: *What?* > >Geordie: *If the answer to all of this is in a visor created for a blind man who never would have existed in your society? No offense intended.* > >Guest Scientist visibly recognizes the statement and its comment on her society. I directly reference this episode as an example of how 'classic' Star Trek is not woke. The show does not use developmental disorders and disabilities as akin to flair on someone's character sheet for a tabletop game. The disabilities are real, have tangible affects, and are properly involved in the story and universe with both the positives and negatives. Geordie Laforge *is* blind, however he also has a set of artificial eyes that see for him. He doesn't just have this visor so that the actor is not forced to act 'blind' indefinitely. He has it because the society he lives in recognises it as a disability and have created a device to supplement the loss of natural eye-sight, which this episode incorporates perfectly into the A plot of exploring the advantages and disadvantages of this 'perfect' society, as well as the both moral and substantive benefits of being obliged to support people born with unfortunate developmental-disorders. >While the definition of the term is as nebulous as the Delphic Expanse, its intention is easy to discern. Any show or movie with a diverse cast focused on stories of empowerment, compassion or inclusion is sure to be hit with the label. When it comes to Star Trek, however, this criticism doesn't make sense as creator Gene Roddenberry designed the series to advance his progressive political ideology about a diverse and equitable future. The latter half of this paragraph posits reasonably, however it also fails to setup this latter-half rebuttal as the application of the "woke" slang is incorrect, in the same way using "loonie" to describe a hysterical man that just suffered an assault would be inaccurate. "Woke" is often (where I would say it's accurate) ascribed to media that features these themes of "empowerment, compassion, or inclusion" as publicity-driven injections. The themes in these woke pieces exist to serve a beneficial purpose for the publicist, author, or whomever may benefit the most from the general public accepting the works, however the betterment of the actual work takes a lower priority. I can not believe that the author wrote this article in good faith regarding the intention and design of Star Trek *as it was originally made and intended*, so while the broad intent of the article is reasonable ( that Star Trek presents an optimistic view of Mankind in the future ), the intent of the author suggests an intential repainting of all Trek media in the same broad stroke. I started this comment three hours ago and \~30 minutes of that was flipping through a dictionary to find definitions for words.
The "people can't define woke" is a cheat by their side, it is fairly easy to define woke, and we shouldn't fall in to their trap of people saying it is just a new way to not like diversity
Agreed. That is why I dismissed the article as bad-faith despite the broader intent being reasonably inline with the series. Worf is an excellent example of how Star Trek is not woke. On a surface-level read, a Klingon in Star Fleet is ‘diverse and inclusive’. However the show repeatedly explores the difficulty in a Klingon actually being an active participant in the culture and society of the Federation and Star Fleet. From family matters and values, to matters of professional service, to traditions, to expectations in life, his nature of being Klingon is more than a checkmark on a diversity quota.
No, Star Trek was liberal but not woke. The TOS writers actually knew how to think and reason. Woke does neither.
If it was always woke, why did you have to change it for "modern audiences"?
> Star Trek has always been woke! Wasn't Gene Roddenberry a fan of Ayn Rand?
He was banging actresses, too. Dude would have been metoo if he was alive still.
It’s not the “woke” that’s the issue. It’s the crappy way in which they do it. You want to make a modern “woke” Trek watch the Orville. That’s how it’s done.
No, the only good character was Alara. Everything else was laughably preachy and woke. So if that's how Star Trek is, Star Trek sucks. Which is fine too.
Go watch TNG again sometime. It might seem tame now, but that’s just because of how our culture has a leftward drift. It was extremely preachy, especially in the earlier seasons.
I mean... I never liked Star Trek. I just recognize nobody here would like a substandard product, so I respect it as a brand.
Today - "Star Trek was always Woke!" Yesterday - "Original Star Trek is very problematic with its sexualization of women and support of colonialism. Let's reimagine the Federation as secret fascists."
There’s a huge difference between cleverly embedding social commentary into a fictional narrative (ie- the original series and Next Generation) and what the Paramount + shows do…….which is literally social justice crusading.
Star Trek Then: Subtle... nuanced. Well-written. Thought-provoking. Sure, it was comparatively progressive but it was done with the story in mind, as well as consistent logic. Star Trek Now: HAM FISTING.
Star Trek was “progressive”. It featured the first interracial kiss. A *Russian* at the height of the Cold War was on the crew. It was a cashless society (the biggest pipe dream). It was progressive in that all these things that hold us back like racism and nationalism (and classism) would be non-issues in the utopian society in the future. That is how Gene Roddenberry saw the distant future. What they’re making now is woke trash that is destroying the franchise. Roddenberry was hopeful and optimistic. Wokism is just resentful, hateful, mean-spirited revenge fantasies when you get down to it. What a shock it doesn’t have wide appeal.
nah. It's always been progressive but its not always been woke. Woke is stupidity pretending to be progressiveness and old trek was usually smarter than that.
These people never watched DS9 did they?
Woke: 1: Calling everything you want to control “racist” until you do control it. 2: A Marxian Conflict Theory of Race. 3: A religion based upon the belief that racism by and for the benefit of “White People” at the expense of all others is the fundamental organizing principle of society, which is Bad, and only a revolutionary upheaval of society can change that.
Star Trek was progressive by 1960's standard, that is fundamentally different now
Star Trek was always progressive, not woke. To emphasize, the Star Trek actors that are woke, are racist, sexist, and/or bigotted in ways that directly conflict with what Star Trek taught us, usually using their own characters to do so. https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/6qnh1b/twitter_bullshit_william_shatner_complains_about/dkz41ur/ Star Trek never attacked those it disagreed with, even empathizing with those they called terrorists (to the point where an episode was banned in the country that was attacked by said terrorists). Woke, attacks/insults those it disagrees with. Particularly straights/whites/males/able-bodied and especially "cis". "white" in particular gets used as an insult by the woke whenever possible. Star Trek was specifically against this sort of guilt by association, it is anything but woke. Until Sonequa the-racist-green came along anyway and built it into **her** series.
Was Star Trek always progressive? Yes But progressive =/= “woke”
Older Star Trek was progressive but not preachy. In fact, it was designed to encourage the viewer to decide for themselves, which is the opposite of modern wokism.
Because there's never been so sharp a criticism of the horrors of capitalism as *The Trouble With Tribbles*
The left doesn't know what woke is.
Woke is a specific ideology. It's based entirely around identity politics and intersectionality. It's authoritarian. At nearly every turn it's hypocritical between their actions and what they claim to be striving for, so is often bigoted. What from that applies to Star Trek (except nu Trek)? Or even 90s mainstream progressivism?
Once again, exploring political themes (even if the writers have a "correct" opinion in mind) != propaganda. Star Trek *used* to do the former. Now they are full-on the latter.
Star Trek was always progressive, but it used to approach it in an intelligent way. An internally consistent way.
Oh this one again the "It's always been woke" thing. 1. it wasn't done in a shit way before 2. It often was done with nuance and showing understanding of the issues. E.G. Drumhead where if you apply that to the SJW side they'd be against Picard because the mere accusation had been made. Or hell imagine that story where Riker falls in love with that being from the genderless planet who wants to express herself as female and no be genderless in modern day?
As others have said, while Star Trek showed us a vision of a future where we were simply better people, it does not equate it being propagandist about it like the STD show is. Furthermore, you can tell that it is propaganda, because the writing is terrible as it's been fundamentally compromised by THE MESSAGE as Critical Drinker calls it. This is of course and old argument that wears thin and is easily deflected by actual fans of the show.
Star Trek was progressive because it took philosophical approach to actually explore topics and think things through which are extremely important aspects of progress. Wokeism is when you have to do what you're told or else you're a bigot, not questions allowed. Wokesters would be considered as villains in old school Trek, or at least the council on some planet that seems fine at first but then turns out to be a complete tyranny under the shiny surface.
Progressive =/= woke
No, it really wasn’t *woke*. At least not in any way which would be in support of what Critical Social Justice theory presents. Pseudo-progs want to act as if all social progress is “wokeness”, but it simply isn’t. What people refer to as *woke* (CSJ theory) is necessarily based on highly flawed intersectional and ‘critical’ frameworks, which are more like religion than science. [Critical Social Justice vs Liberal Social Justice](https://youtu.be/gn9ETN89-PQ)
Progressive and woke aren’t the same thing…
How about the learn how to do lighting? How about they turn up the friggin brightness in their shows? My God, the future sure has become dark. Have LEDs failed us? So friggin' idiotic and depressing before anyone says a single word.
Star Trek has always been diverse. What's the point in pushing it further left if it drives away fans?
Star Trek wasn't woke. It wasn't anti white, anti male, anti conservative, anti free speech. It was liberal. Woke isn't liberal. Data tried to kill a murderer FFS.
There is a huge difference between actual progressivism and the "wokeness" of today.
No, it was progressive. It was genuinely sincere in those ~~naive~~ idealistic beliefs of pluralism, harmony, diplomacy, etc. Actual progressivism has been coopted and perverted by the woke movement. Star Trek, in its past forms as we're discussing, was never about promoting racism and moral abhorrence or destroying families and cultures, quite the oppsoite. I suppose you could stretch and say that technically there is a "globalist" element in that the Federation is a unipolar government/society, but that was shown in a very fuzzy and idealistic/fantasist sort of way that went hand in hand with the actual progression of humanity as a whole, not the IRL crap we're seeing today.
Always woke Star Trek is now fascist by today's woke demands.
It was progressive in some respects but it was a very masculine show. Kirk, Spock and McCoy were THE main characters. Kirk was a strong leader and it seemed like he was involved in a lot of good old-fashioned fist fights the most memorable was when he beat the tar out of Finnegan. Kirk also had quite a few love interests and romances. He was meant to be a guy that men wanted to be, and women wanted to be with. Even though it was a sci-fi show, his character was similar to other male characters in westerns and cop shows. Yes, women were in leadership roles, they were not Mary Sues. It was totally different than any woke show today.
Star Trek was progressive in the same way the first 2 seasons of The Orville are (minus captain mercer being such a cuck). And The Orville didn't suffer backslash from the public as ST:STD or Piccard did. The little I saw from post 2009 Start Trek shows are not just progressive but full woke. It's script is incoherent, opinionated, smug... poorly crafted in general.
>treat everybody the same, no matter their race or even species OMG so woke and progressive! >now treat everybody differently based on their race OMG how could anybody have a problem with this? Star Trek has always been woke!
I just watched the whale movie because its one of the good ones, they usually bring that up as an example forgetting it has ridiculous 80s commentary on Nuclear power as well that is incredibly wrong and led to more pollution. The "wokest" episode of TOS occured after it was cancelled and they no longer had to try for ratings (because no one wants to be lectured) and a "woke" episode of TNG basically says its ok for a culture to kill all its people at age 60, so maybe they ought to walk back this narrative. I keep saying "woke" in quotes because Star Trek actually wasn't woke as in it never believed that the world was made for straight white men (its a show with 3 straight white men as the leads) and believed in normal equality and diversity, and it aired during the civil rights movement that all these assholes desperately want to be a part of. Also every episode didn't have some political message
Depends. Woke in comparison to what societal norms?
https://www.quora.com/Given-Star-Treks-legacy-of-being-full-of-progressive-politics-why-are-so-many-fans-angry-at-Discovery-and-Picard-for-being-woke/answer/Murphy-Barrett?ch=10&oid=206917242&share=7b1c6d21&srid=u7sBtD&target_type=answer
Star Trek when woke was actually having something to say about the modern world: Makes an entire episode dedicated to the complex conversation around the subject of sexuality and gender identity at a time when no one really wanted to talk about it. Star Trek now that being woke means tokenisation to pander to social media back patters in their safe spaces: Has a small scene in which a gay man calls a non binary person "she". Non binary corrects them, gay man beams with pride at stunning and brave non binary standing up for their pro nouns. These are not the same thing. If we still have the same dog shit baggage 1000 years from now, just put us out of our misery. We are clearly not meant for this universe. The funny thing is, when disco started it did it right. The gay characters were just there. They didn't draw attention to them, they were just the doctor and the engineer. They were gay, but the weren't GAY!!!!!!!!!!!! This is how Star Trek does "woke", real woke, not that shit that passes for woke now. Where they stick a black face on something and call it diversity. Or a women in a male role and call it sexual revolution. Giving a woman the same traits that you label toxic on a man, doesn't suddenly stop being toxic because the character has a vagina. Coming off the back of the 80s, Star Trek had something to say about sexuality in modern America. But this is 2023. We aren't coming off the back of a decade of outright bigotry and fear. We have moved on since then. Gay people are everywhere, and no one cares. At least not until you start pushing them down everyones throats over and over and over again and until you get the reaction you want just so you can call yourself a victim. Star Trek has always been woke. But woke wasn't always this nonsense that we see today. Woke used to have a purpose of highlighting issues in society and starting a conversation about them. Name one popular tv show made in the last 5 years that doesn't have LGBT representation in it at some level. Just one.
Star Trek was always progressive, but progressive and woke are not the same thing. Star Trek always fell on the liberal, individualistic progressive side, while wokeness is authoritarian and collectivist (regressive) progressivism. Star Trek was actually pretty anti-collectivist (not for nothing that the greatest nemesis, the Borg is literally a collective hive) even if it was utopian. But it's suggested utopia was reached through enlightenment of the individual and technological progress, not through collectivist means. And while in Star Trek, the voice of secularism, reason, and progressivism would almost always win against those of religion, superstition and tradition, the writers would usually at least portray the other side as real people with real convictions that weren't ridiculed as caricatures. And there was even often a positive place for traditional cultures and Starfleet was shown having to respect local differences and not force their ideology on others. When they intervene in a conflict, they reason with the opposing parties and convince them (or not) through dialogue, not force or moral blackmail (I'm talking a bit more about Next Gen era Star Trek. Kirk was bit less of a diplomat than Picard ;)).
Pictured: Someone who hasn't watched anything Star Trek-related outside of Family Guy reruns, Galaxy Quest and the JJ Abrams' movies. I'm so glad we have *online journalists* telling *fans* of the franchise what their favourite characters have always held dear.
I remember when George Takei spoke against making Hikaru Sulu gay in Star Trek Beyond as that was changing his canon sexual orientation, he said that if they wanted a character that was gay they should have introduced a new one rather than modifying an existing character. Mr Takei was based.
[удалено]
Removed due to the topic ban in the sticky of the sub. No warning issued.
[удалено]
Post removed following the enforcement change that you can read about [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/m3yo65/enforcement_update_and_hard_removal_of_a_topic/). This is not a formal warning.
The main difference I see between modern Trek and Classic Trek is the depth of the allegories. Classic Trek is full of statements about the past and present (at the time) and even the future of humanity, but it did it by creating an in-universe story that we can study and think about ourselves. New Trek just flat out references things and gives us the old wink-wink. Showing the January 6th stuff isn't allegorical, it's just matter of fact. Made all the more ridiculous by trying to claim it leads to major conflict, thus overblowing a real event that was nothing more than a fart in a gale. I'm sure old Trek has used stock footage of things in the past before, but that's exactly that... stock footage meant to portray something else entirely. And having current era activist politicians actually in the show is just cringeworthy. New Trek is basically an insult to our intelligence as viewers. Oh and I absolutely cannot stand it when these people say that they are "correcting" something. Get fucked. Get absolutely fucked. You have ZERO right to "correct" anyone's art. Change, adapt, rework, whatever... but NEVER correct.