If I’m understanding your post correctly, you’re saying that ‘60s Trek had representation because it was the right thing to do, while modern Trek has it because it believes it is more profitable. That leaves me with two death-of-the-author type questions:
How do you know the motivations behind these decisions?
If representation is a good thing for the show to have, why does the motivation behind its inclusion matter?
Roddenberry’s desire to include social commentary in TOS has been discussed for decades and is well known.
Representation that cares about the issues tends to be more honest and true than the tokenism and hand-puppet waving that more typically come from targeting a consumer audience.
I never said I doubted Roddenberry’s intentions. I don’t particularly doubt the modern team’s, either, though.
Representation that cares about the issues tends to be more honest and true than the tokenism and hand-puppet waving that more typically come from targeting a consumer audience.
That sounds fair to say in general, but it’s not very specific. Which characters in modern Trek would you say are token minorities?
Regarding point 1, Roddenberry was indeed very open about his desire to make sure that when people watched Trek, they saw a version of the future where things were more egalitarian. He wanted a woman to the first officer on the ship, even though he also had Pike voice some consternation about having a woman on the bridge regarding yeoman Colt. He wanted people of colour on the ship. During the height of the Cold War, he wanted a proud Russian character on the ship, and even made up a story about being a Russian magazine article criticizing the lack of representation. He wanted people of colour on the ship. According to George Takei, when he tried to convince Roddenberry to include gay representation, Gene said that he wanted to, but couldn’t push for that with the studio. TOS famously had the first scripted interracial kiss in a North American television show.
As you alluded, even if we recognize that some of Roddenberry’s motivations were money and ratings oriented – like having Chekov’s hair be styled like the Monkees’ to appeal to a younger demographic, or his introducing the Vulcan IDIC he could sell merch of it – we also have to acknowledge that he was dedicated to portraying that egalitarian future as much as he could given the constraints of the era.
But how do you know the motivations of the people making those decisions today?
If I’m understanding your post correctly, you’re saying that ‘60s Trek had representation because it was the right thing to do, while modern Trek has it because it believes it is more profitable. That leaves me with two death-of-the-author type questions:
I never said I doubted Roddenberry’s intentions. I don’t particularly doubt the modern team’s, either, though.
That sounds fair to say in general, but it’s not very specific. Which characters in modern Trek would you say are token minorities?
Regarding point 1, Roddenberry was indeed very open about his desire to make sure that when people watched Trek, they saw a version of the future where things were more egalitarian. He wanted a woman to the first officer on the ship, even though he also had Pike voice some consternation about having a woman on the bridge regarding yeoman Colt. He wanted people of colour on the ship. During the height of the Cold War, he wanted a proud Russian character on the ship, and even made up a story about being a Russian magazine article criticizing the lack of representation. He wanted people of colour on the ship. According to George Takei, when he tried to convince Roddenberry to include gay representation, Gene said that he wanted to, but couldn’t push for that with the studio. TOS famously had the first scripted interracial kiss in a North American television show.
As you alluded, even if we recognize that some of Roddenberry’s motivations were money and ratings oriented – like having Chekov’s hair be styled like the Monkees’ to appeal to a younger demographic, or his introducing the Vulcan IDIC he could sell merch of it – we also have to acknowledge that he was dedicated to portraying that egalitarian future as much as he could given the constraints of the era.
But how do you know the motivations of the people making those decisions today?