
New Star Trek series will abandon Gene Roddenberry's cardinal rule - rluhar
https://arstechnica.co.uk/gaming/2017/06/star-trek-discovery-cardinal-rule/
======
nabla9
Good sci-fi extrapolates.

One reason I like Star Trek is that it had some aspects of sci-fi in the
social realm. Like the fact that people had culturally evolved a little bit.
TNG episode "The Neutral Zone" underlines the cultural differences between
Star Trek utopia and the real world.

Too much sci-fi in TV is just projecting current cultural zeitgeist into the
future or space. It becomes interesting only afterwards as bottled
representation of the past. For example, BSG 2004-2009 stores forever the
mental landscape of United States after 9/11.

------
MR4D
I'm amazed at this decision. Let's look at it in context:

\--CBS wants to present a modern crew (modern to today's standards).

\--CBS wants to have a female captain (showing diversity)

\--CBS wants to have a black captain (also showing diversity)

But here's the rub. CBS now wants to show that it's leaders are more human
than perfect, and show them in a negative light (not all the time obviously).

Pu that together, and you get that CBS is presenting a black female captain
who is not as strong as the white males, black males, and white women before
her.

I don't get it. Diversity is obviously a good thing, as Gene had a beautiful
dream about racism being eliminated. Showing people as more human is
understandable, even though Gene thought differently (I have no position on
the topic). However, if you really want to promote diversity, why is the first
time you decide to show leaders in a negative light also the first time you
have a black female captain.

Am I being too sensitive, or do you think this will cause issues, too?

~~~
squozzer
Understandable, but my best answer is to say the other series were too naive.
Besides, no matter what the series, The Captain Always Wins In The End.

~~~
qbrass
She's not captain. She's first officer. _edit_ \-- So that doesn't really help
her.

------
lithos
Well I guess it is closer to what "media influencers" are pushing. Painting
leadership in the worst possible lights, that for the good of the main
characters to come out things need to end (zombie apocalypse or similar
doomsdays), and/or having entire rigged systems against characters.

That being said bigger fans than me have sane claims that Star trek has been
about American political counter points (peace and noninterference in cold
war, and similar). So if characters are constantly compromising, and actually
working on hard problems it might be able to keep those themes (opposed to
political deadlock, separation, and short-term gains in reality).

