OldBoy

There looks to be an interesting special on History Channel tonight, 8.14.16. "50 Years of Star Trek". Looks to be new and boasts last final interview with Leonard Nimoy...

B5Erik

No, not at all. I'm just opposed to discriminating against anyone based on ethnicity or gender, even if that group had been overrepresented in the past. Be fair with everyone, that's all I'd like to see.

I do (and I'm sure you do too) see people who support the idea that unfairly discriminating against white men is fair since white men had it good for such a long time. Discrimination based on any ethnicity is discrimination, and it's all unacceptable.

We'll see how this turns out. Maybe they'll be fair and evenhanded with the characters with Discovery, but so far it doesn't sound that way. I hope it does. Star Trek is supposed to be INclusive, not exclusive.

Jay G.

I don't think the facts support your case:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/17/bu...cord.html?_r=0
Scripted roles are on a rise.

The major studios make less movies, but that's ignoring all the smaller studios or independent productions.

Just as example, IMDB lists 7,109 Films/TV Shows from the US in 2015:
http://www.imdb.com/search/title?yea...dv_explore_rhs

Meanwhile, for 1985, it only lists 583:
http://www.imdb.com/search/title?yea...dv_explore_rhs

If that ever actually happens, people may care. However, we're nowhere near that situation right now.

I mean, even accounting for just the top 100 films, women are still underrepresented:
http://www.ew.com/article/2016/02/09...ers-2015-films

Defiant1

A quick perusal of the four major networks show that a whopping three dramas (NCIS: LA, Empire, and Rosewood) have a lead character who is non-white. So don't worry white guys, there's still plenty of roles left for you!

windom

^ You can add:
Scandal
How To Get Away With Murder
Quantico
Jane The Virgin (Maybe this is a comedy & on the CW though)

B5Erik

And, in reality, Bones and The Blacklist have female leads, too. (On The Blacklist James Spader gets significantly less screen time than Megan Boone does, and on Bones Emily Deschanel is a co-lead on equal footing with David Boreanaz.)

And that's fine. They're good shows and good characters.

Jay G.

I think Defiant1's list is of all male lead roles, of which only 3 are to non-white men.

windom and B5Erik's lists are of female leads, which is somewhat separate. Theoretically, about half the leads should be female to match the demographics, but there's, at best, 5 female leads.

So white men are still getting the majority of roles.

Sean O'Hara

You haven't explained why one is "organic" and the other "forced." Ethnicity and gender have a lot to do with who a person is -- their cultural heritage, their experience in society, what type of family relationships they have. Being French is a major part of who Captain Picard is -- why would it be wrong to start with that and work out his character from there.

Look, I'm a writer. I'm currently working on a fantasy novel set in the DC area. I'm very aware of the ethnic makeup of the DC suburbs, and I take that into account every time I create a character. So I have to come up with a new character. Let's make her Middle Eastern ... Iranian, that's good. I know, her grandfather was a historian who fled the country after the revolution and took a professorship at Oxford. Her father grew up to be a BBC newscaster who's assigned to the Washington bureau. Her parents are divorced -- her mom's still living in Britain where she's a fashion designer. Because of her family history, she's not very devout, doesn't wear a head scarf, only goes to Mosque on holidays and doesn't sweat if she misses a prayer, but she still thinks pigs are filthy animals and won't eat pork. She feels driven to excel academically and is in tons of clubs at school, including the academic trivia team, and every night she and her family sit down to watch Jeopardy.

But I started with her ethnicity, so I guess that's not organic, is it?

JayG already pointed out that this is false in terms of race, but you're overlooking another key point -- the writers started with the idea that Geordi would be blind. They didn't develop the character "organically" and then give him his VISOR; they used that as the seed upon which to build the character.

Because only people in leadership roles can be the center of stories, amirite?

And while the number of leading roles for women has certainly increased in recent years, it's nowhere close to parity.

Gays, lesbians and bisexuals account for about 5% of the population. That means one in twenty TV shows or movies should have a gay lead character, and, yes, 1/4 should have a gay character in the main cast. We are nowhere close to that.

[qutoe] If a character fits the situation or concept naturally, great! Include them. But, again, shoehorning them in because there is a politically correct social justice agenda doesn't make for better filmmaking or television shows.[/quote]

It doesn't make for bad television, either. It depends upon the quality of the producers and writing staff whether it works or not. And since we're discussing the new Star Trek show, which includes Bryan Fuller and Nicholas Meyer, there's no reason to worry in that regard.


So your dad was slightly more qualified (according to the story he told you, which absolutely must be 100% accurate), therefore it was wrong for the HR department to maximize diversity? Because test scores are the only thing that matter in hiring decisions.

Yes, and when this results in overwhelmingly white, straight male casts, you'll just shrug and say, "They're just hiring the best actors for the job."

B5Erik

You went out of your way to create a Middle Eastern character. Why? Because there was a great story to tell there, or because you felt that someone of that ethnicity should be included in your story? Just an honest question. If you really thought it was a great story to be told then more power to you. If it was because, "Well, I need to include this minority since they don't get their stories told," then that's not organic and makes your job as a writer harder. Does that ethnicity push the story forward, is it a natural part of the story that NEEDS to be told, or is it just because?


He started without the VISOR because Roddenberry thought it would be hilarious to have a blind man steering the ship. The visor came about because they needed some way for him to know how to steer the ship when there are no actual buttons to press (they smartly used an early preview of a touchscreen for the controls).

But he wasn't black initially. He was just blind. I may have been wrong as to when they decided to make him black, but initially it was just a blind helmsman because Roddenberry thought it was inherently funny.

He was a great character, though - I think we can agree on that.


Well, typically on Star Trek it is the Captain and his/her command staff (highest ranking officers) that they focus on...

And that matches real life, too. It's changing, and within my lifetime we will see more women in leadership roles than men because women outnumber men in colleges by over 10%. That will then change on TV and in the movies. Bet on it.

What? Wait, so they make up 5% of the population but should be in 25% of the TV show casts? Huh??? I'm not quite sure I understand that math...

While I love Nicholas Meyer I have no idea how actively involved he'll be. He's not a young man anymore, so the day to day TV show work is probably not what he'll be involved in. My bet is that he'll come up with some ideas, act as a consultant giving opinions on characters and stories, but that's about it. I have NO point of familiarity with Bryan Fuller. I know none of his works, so I have no basis to put any faith in him.

Oh, shit. He was a writer/producer on Voyager. That show SUCKED. Great characters, lousy stories/plot writing.

Bummer.

No, but he had more experience and a better interview, too. It was Affirmative Action at it's worst and must unfair. The best candidate could not get the job.

I'm pretty darned sure with how Hollywood leans WAY left that you won't see an increased straight white male presence on TV and in the movies over the next 20 years.

Sean O'Hara

Read what I said -- the story is set in the Washington DC area. The Washington DC area is very heavily ethnically mixed. There are lots of people of Middle Eastern descent there. If the story is going to be realistic, there have to be characters like that. And since being Muslim-American is going to affect many aspects of her life, it's best to start from there.

Okay. So? I have to read some books on the Muslim-American experience and make sure she doesn't eat pepperoni pizza. Yes, that requires extra effort on my part, but why is that a problem?

So characters should only deviate from the default if it serves some plot purpose? That's ridiculous. If I made the character a white girl, you wouldn't be asking these questions. What changes when she becomes a person of color?

Now, are you going to respond to my point -- what's wrong with the character I described? How is she not "organic" and why is that a bad thing?

You're missing the point -- they wanted a blind character on the show. If including a gay character is an unconscionable act of political correctness, why is a blind character different?

Yes, and right after they decided that, they said, "and he should be black too." They made the decision before casting, just as they're doing on Discovery by deciding which characters should be women and/or gay.

We were discussing casting in general here. But if you want to focus on Star Trek -- we're talking about a vision of a Utopian 23rd and 24th Century. Roddenberry had a female first officer in the original pilot (and contrary to what you may've read, NBC only wanted him to ditch Majel Barrett, not the concept in its entirety). DS9 decided to make the captain black, and on Voyager they went with a woman. Why is it suddenly objectionable that the Discovery producers are going with a female lead with a gay character somewhere in the mix?

I said "main cast". Very few shows have just one regular character, and even the "two guys on the road" shows are few and far between these days. If the average cast size is more than five, then realistically at least a quarter of shows should feature a gay character as an opening credit regular.

Take modern Trek shows -- and I'll exclude TOS, since the network wouldn't have allowed a gay character on the show. They've had 34 characters listed in the opening credits. Discovery will probably bring that over 40. By this point we should've have seen at least two gay characters, but we're still working on the first one -- and there are people screaming that even that is too much.

Yes, Fuller worked on Voyager in the very beginning of his career, starting as a lowly staff writer. He only got promoted to producer in the final season, and that was only a co-producer position, not a show-runner, and if you read interviews with him, he wasn't enthused by the direction the show took.

Since then, however, he's created three of the best and most creative SF series of the 21st Century -- Dead Like Me, Wonderfalls and Pushing Daisies. He's earned the benefit of the doubt from any fan SF fan.

B5Erik

Fair enough. I'm not personally familiar with the demographics of the DC area other than it's heavily African-American. I live over 3,000 miles away, and I've never been there. Just asking.

It's only a problem in that it requires extra work/effort on your part. As long as it fits your overall vision of the story and serves to move that story forward there is zero problem plot-wise.

You're getting way more defensive than you need to be. You've given me plenty of criticism, but I'm just asking questions and pointing out that the story comes first and the characters should be there to serve the story, more or less. Obviously, you seem to have a firm grasp on that. But a lot of people write with an agenda in mind (especially those writing for Hollywood), and that doesn't always serve the story - it serves the agenda.


Don't you get it? Having a BLIND HELMSMAN is FUNNY. It's a joke every time he's piloting the ship. That was Roddenberry's ONLY motivation in making him blind, not to include a handicapped person for politically correct reasons.

OK, fair enough. But you cannot deny there is a certain amount of political correctness about the way this show is being developed. That's my only concern. Gotta check those boxes before moving on!

In and of itself it isn't objectionable, but if they're doing it to check those boxes that's kind of lame. If that's what they're doing, and it certainly seems like it is, then they're letting different activist groups dictate who they can and cannot have on the show.

Why? I work with dozens of gay people (over 2,000 people work in our office), and none of them make being gay an issue. They're not closeted, but it's just not an issue and it never, ever comes up. They don't talk about it other than, "We went to Sea World over the weekend," kind of thing, and you know who the other half of, "We," is. They're just people, not gay people - does that make sense? They don't go advertising it any more than the heteros in the office advertise/make public being heterosexual.

Fair enough.

I'm not at all familiar with those shows. His scripts on DS9 were good, but not great (his first scripts, to be fair), and I can't remember any episodes of Voyager that he wrote - just that the show sucked for the most part thanks to the Kazon (worst bad guys ever - at least the Ferengi were funny) and the producers insistence on keeping them around for an absurd, ludicrous length of time (which, with the Voyager using warp speed, shouldn't have been more than a handful of episodes).

He'll have to earn my confidence with his work on Discovery. My only concern is that there are characters on the show that I can relate to and care about and, just as importanly, that the stories are good.

Frankly, I could have done a far better job on Voyager than their showrunners did. He didn't make that show any better, but if he didn't have any pull then it wasn't his fault.

By the way, are you familiar with Vernor Vinge?

DJariya

Fuller, at least in this forum, is best known as the creator and showrunner of Hannibal. The show based on the Thomas Harris books and on the Hannibal Lecter character. It aired for 3 years on NBC and was 97% on Rotten Tomatoes.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/hannibal/s03/

You've never heard of that show Erik? It was relatively popular here when it aired.

They absolutely hired a quality creative person behind the scenes to run Discovery.

He was also a writer/producer on Heroes 1st season and his episodes were regarded as the best before he left and that show flamed out.

Jay G.

What's notable about that show is he took a franchise that many felt was on its last legs (Hannibal Lecter) and revitalized it. He also recast some characters as different genders and ethnicities, to overall positive effect.

He also helped create the upcoming TV adaptation of American Gods on Starz, although he's since left that show, at least on a day-to-day basis, to focus on Discovery.

Jay G.

This comes off as incredibly racist/sexist/homophobic. It makes it sound like you can only relate to characters that are straight white men, like you.

Sean O'Hara

Most parts of the DC metropolitan area -- not just the District, but the suburbs and even the exurbs -- are less than 2/3rds white -- and remember, the US Census Bureau classes many Hispanics and most Middle Easterners as "white," so the area is even more ethnicaly diverse than that number indicates. If you set a story in the area, and you don't make every third character a person of color, it's not realistic.


Why is it wrong to expect a writer to work? When I read science fiction, I expect the writer to do basic research into orbital mechanics. When I read fantasy, I expect the writer to have a decent understanding of horses. When I read a mystery, I expect the writer to know how the criminal justice system functions. All of that is work. Why is race a step too far?

That's how crappy writers work. Good writers start with characters and let them drive the story. As a Babylon 5 fan, you should know this -- JMS has spoken on many occasions about how he changed his plans for the series after realizing, hey, Londo wouldn't do that. Vir would.


Here's an idea. Instead of assuming what's going on without any knowledge of the actual behind-the-scenes process, and instead of jumping to the conclusion that it's going to suck ahead of time, maybe you could take a step back. Let gay fans have a moment to say, "Woo-hoo! There's going to be a character like me on the show!" and the women in the audience to go, "All right, I hope the female lead is going to be as cool as Kira and Jadzia were!"

Then, in another six months, when the show comes out, you can watch it with a clear mind and judge it on its merits. Maybe it'll turn out to be a godawful mess, and you can say, "Wow, what a pile of crap. Based upon the evidence that I've actually seen on screen with my own eyes, the writers spent way too much time thinking about which character should be gay, or a woman, or a transgendered Klingon poet, and not enough developing actual personalities for them." But maybe -- crazy thought -- maybe it'll turn out to be a brilliant piece of work, the best entry in Star Trek since DS9. You can't know that based upon the little bit of preproduction info we've seen so far.

Getting worked up now because Fuller has promised to include a gay character is as ridiculous as ... well, every other thing you've gotten worked up about.


And nobody's asking for Star Trek to include anything more than that. Gay fans just want to be represented. They want a character who sits on the bridge and does cool stuff, then goes back to his quarters and kisses his boyfriend, the same way we've seen dozens of straight Trek characters do with members of the opposite sex.

So why shouldn't everyone have a chance for that?

Vernor Vinge who wrote an entire book where the heroes were Asian guys for no reason other than he made them Asian guys because, hey, Asian guys are going to go out and explore space just like everyone else? Yeah, I've read him.

B5Erik

Wow. Jump to conclusions, much? I think we all want to watch characters we can relate to or at least sympathize/empathize with in stories that are well told. That's all I'm saying.

B5Erik

It's not. I'm just asking. If you can do that and it helps you come up with a good book more power to you!

Well, I know he changed how he wrote Ivanova after being around Claudia Christian for a few weeks. Her sense of humor and wild style came through in the character after a half dozen episodes. But the overall story arcs were only changed when he had to replace actors (Michael O'Hare and Claudia Christian), and when it looked like they weren't getting Season 5 (and even then he just sped up the pace).


Again, fair enough. I guess I just got turned off by the, "Look at me, look at me! I'm politically correct," way that they're announcing the characters. They didn't make a big deal about Sisko or Janeway. When those characters were first announced it was real matter of fact.

You're right. Good points, all.

Again, it was the way that they made such a big deal about it when it hasn't been the style of Star Trek to make a big deal about that stuff (because it really shouldn't be a big deal). They presented it as matter of fact and like it shouldn't come as a surprise in any way. They downplayed it and let the characters do the talking on the show.

I guess I probably overreacted, but I'm just so tired of the politically correct crowd telling me I'm a bad person because I've never supported this or that when in fact I've never been against either.

To me people are just people for the most part. Color, ethnicity, gender, orientation - whatever. We're all just human beings. I just don't like the idea that some people like to segment us and put checkboxes next to us based on whatever group they think we are part of. We're all just people.

Jay G.

But what makes you think you won't be able to sympathize/empathize with the characters on this show? The only thing we know about them so far is gender/race/sexual orientation, so if you're concerned about sympathizing/empathizing with them, it must be because of one of those 3 factors.

B5Erik

Nothing. I don't know either way. It depends on how well they're written. I'm going to find out whenever I get a chance to watch the show.

Jay G.

But then why were you concerned?

You bemoaned the casting decisions as "pandering," complained about there being less roles for straight white men, and then posted concern about there being characters that you'll be able to relate to on the show. It definitely reads like you don't feel like you can relate to any characters other than straight white men. What other way is there to take that? Think about what you're writing, and the context you're writing it in.

Jay G.

I remember both the casting of Sisko and Janeway being a "big deal" at the time, Janeway in particular. There was a lot of press about it. The news so far about the Discovery casting has been subdued by comparison.

B5Erik

Another person always looking for the worst in others.

Sad.

They haven't announced any characters other than the ones that fit the checkboxes. Pardon me if that seems odd.

And it's hard for anyone to relate to characters with significantly different background than their own. Not impossible (not by any stretch of the imagination), but difficult. Good writing can overcome that, however, so it really comes down to the writing. I'm going in to this thing with an open mind. I'm just a little cautious after the disaster that was Voyager and the blandness that was the first couple of seasons of Enterprise (seasons so bland they got me to stop watching the show altogether, just like I did after the 4th season of Voyager). Fuller was part of the Voyager team, and I haven't seen a single minute of anything else he's written or produced so my only frame of reference for him isn't good.

B5Erik

Well, only because Star Trek was so much bigger 20 years ago.

And the producers of Star Trek didn't make as big a deal of Sisko and Janeway as the producers are now with their characters. The media made a big deal about it because Star Trek was still a mega franchise, but the producers downplayed it like it shouldn't be seen as a big deal. Just standard operating procedure for Trek.

Sean O'Hara

I think it helps every writer turn out better work. The sort of writer who only includes characters like themselves -- which is a ton of SF writers, pretty much everything from Baen -- are boring and usually have a smug attitude that they're right about everything. The ones who try to understand the diversity of the world and come up with a wide range of characters create more nuanced works.

If you read the original outline for the series that he released, the changes along the way are much greater than can be explained by cast complications. A prime example is Cartagia's assassination:

Like I said, a good writer lets characters propel the plot. The more diversity and complexity the cast has, the more interesting the results.

Yes they did. I remember reading the first news about Sisko in TV Guide, and they absolutely made a big deal about him being the first black lead character in Star Trek, and how it was the fulfillment of Roddenberry's vision. Ditto Janeway being a woman -- I was on Usenet by that point, and the news was HUGE in fandom. And there were people just like you there, bitching that, "Oh no, they're putting a woman in charge. And an Injun first officer -- it's affirmative action in the 24th Century!" I would've hoped that twenty years would've changed things, but apparently not.


The things you've said here, and in the GB and Rocketeer threads doesn't support that point. Any time we hear about an established franchise adding diversity, you're right there to natter about political correctness and SJWs destroying your favorite things.

Loosen up. Let other people have a chance to play with the cool toys. Stop being divisive with this, "There can't be a black Roceteer!" and "They're shoehorning a gay person into Star Trek!" BS.

And yet we live in a culture where race, gender and sexual orientation do make a difference in how people are treated. You can swear up and down that you don't see race or gender, but that doesn't negate the impact it has on the lives of women and minorities.

B5Erik

I just don't like change. Period. Sue me. I still listen to the same music I listened to 30 years ago. I still watch the same kinds of movies. I'm consistent. I like consistency. A lot of people are easily bored and need change. I'm not one of them.

I just want the changes to be for the right reasons, not because a studio is pandering to special interest groups. With Hollywood, it is honestly hard to tell why they do things like this, but it is often because they want attention or want groups to get off their backs. Or because they have an agenda they're pushing.

All I want are the sequels to the movies and TV shows that I love to carry the same spirit and style and to live up to my expectations. It gets harder to do that when they're making wholesale changes. Not impossible, but harder - and Hollywood is about product more than quality, so my faith in them is limited.

And the only time I've had to deal with anything remotely like that was when I played in a band and had long hair. Every single time I walked into a store wearing a jacked I was watched like a hawk because they suspected I would steal something. So I get that people do get treated differently, and I get that I had an option that they never do - I could cut my hair and instantly change people's perception of me.

I guess since I have never looked at anyone other than as a person I don't understand people who are genuinely racists or sexists because to me it's all about character (and, in the case of some things, ability). I don't care what color someone's skin is or what their orientation is as long as they are a good person. And I'll hang out with anyone who's cool. I'll never understand people who paint with such a broad brush as to denigrate entire groups because of the actions of a few.