MovieChat Forums > Star Trek (1966) Discussion > Khan in trouble with PC culture?

Khan in trouble with PC culture?

posted 5 years ago by AlfredTheGreat (471)
35 replies | jump to latest

The song "Baby, it's cold outside" from the 1940's is drawing a lot of attention this Holiday season from the media as it is a focus of the "me too" movement. The charge is that it promotes aggressive male behavior in the face of an initially disinterested female. The movie Neptune's Daughter (1949) which the song is from has Ricardo Montalban as the man who pursues the woman who is his romantic interest. Good thing that most PC types are disinterested in Star Trek because Montalban's Khan certainly did not take a "no" from Madelyn Rhue's Lt McGivers. Montalban could very well be at the center of a big chit storm if he were still around today.

[–] Keelai (31865) 5 years ago

"Good thing that most PC types are disinterested in Star Trek...."

That's a bizarre thing to write because it's common knowledge that Gene Roddenberry was liberal and he was delivering pro-liberal messages throughout his TV show. ST was about the social issues that were happening during the 1960s.

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 5 years ago

Roddenberry was more than just liberal. He wanted full on fascist technocracy.

[–] Keelai (31865) 5 years ago

Nonsense. His show promoted liberal values.

*Racial, religious, and gender equality
*A money-based economy no longer exists. Basic necessities are free. Credits used for luxury items only. People work for self-fulfillment only.
*Cold war no longer exists
*Utopian future with no disease, war or poverty on Earth

A perfect song for Roddenberry's vision is John Lennon's song "Imagine". Listen to the words carefully.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkgkThdzX-8

[–] AlfredTheGreat (471) 5 years ago

Liberal values no doubt was his aim but quite often he was off target. I've met many people online including the old IMDb message board that are insulted by the notion that the Kirk-Uhura kiss was some kind of statement on racial equality. They say show us minority characters that have clear responsibility and intelligence which did not happen all too often. Uhura pretty much minded communications with "Hailing frequencies open" and Sulu manning the helm with "The course is laid in, Captain." Guests such as Richard Marshall often were showed as flawed instead of the character that makes a clear important contribution. By and large many contend that minorities were OK as long as they knew their place on Star Trek which meant not commanding an important mission, saving the ship, or falling in love.

[–] Keelai (31865) 5 years ago

You're thinking with a 2018 perspective about a 1960s era show.

You're forgetting that miscegenation laws still existed in some states. An interracial kiss was a bold statement back then. BTW, the kiss was originally supposed to be between Spock and Uhura since Roddenberry had been moving the two toward a romantic relationship. I'm glad that the movie reboot finally realized it.

Roddenberry insisted and fought to have a black crew member on the bridge. Nichelle Nichols was frustrated with her small role and was going to quit, but Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. told her how important her role was and she decided to stay. Keep in mind that TV black characters - especially unstereotyped - were a rarity back then. Agreed, her on air role was small, but it was historic and important. Ditto George Takei.

I'm going to add Chekov to the mix since he represented the end of the Cold War.

[–] AlfredTheGreat (471) 5 years ago

Disappointed to learn that Roddenberry planned to move Spock into a relationship with Uhura. I appreciated the fact that Spock was one of very few characters outside of shows about middle class America that did not sport a hard on 24/7 back in the 1960's. It was clearly demonstrated that his Vulcan half had control in his emotional makeup in normal circumstances.

[–] Keelai (31865) 5 years ago

Two short flirting scenes.

Uhura flirting with Spock. As one comment notes, notice how he tugs at his collar when she asks "Why don't you tell me I'm an attractive young lady."
https://youtu.be/fK3Fc14xOu8?t=279

Spock's smiling as she sings about him:
https://youtu.be/fK3Fc14xOu8?t=383

Middle-class = establishment. I always thought of ST as anti-establishment and way ahead of it's time.

[–] AlfredTheGreat (471) 5 years ago

Actually, when I went to college I knew people that you would describe as proto-PC as the term had not yet been coined. They actually considered Star Trek as a program as a show that promotes fascism. That the Federation basically was the US ordering everyone else around among critiques. I never really saw it quite that extreme as in "Journey to Babel" all members of the Federation got to have a say over a course of action. The Federation was certainly human centric in its presentation but never implied that humans solely called the shots.

[–] Keelai (31865) 5 years ago

It sounds like the show went completely over the heads of your college friends since it was social commentary about the 60s disguised as a sci-fi.

Kirk was the problem and he interfered everywhere. He should've been booted out of Star Fleet. Maybe the network wanted an action packed show. Roddenberry had more control over the captain's personality with ST:TNG so we get a more passive and rule following Picard.

Their most important principal was The Prime Directive, the noninterference in foreign cultures. The show was centered around a mainly Earth crew, but the Federation was made up of over 100 alien species. Their mission was exploration, diplomacy and helping those in need.

[–] AlfredTheGreat (471) 5 years ago

Roddenberry had plenty of control in developing Kirk as a character as Kirk was deliberately patterned after sea captains of the old British navy who had autonomy where ever they went. Roddenberry wanted to have Kirk make decisions without having to call or unable to call Starfleet in order to analyze the character. Kirk was very anachronistic in a lot of ways.

[–] Keelai (31865) 5 years ago

Kirk was very confrontational while Picard and Riker were passive. Kirk fit in with Roddenberry's sell of the show to the network as a wagon train in space since Westerns were popular at that time. Roddenberry had more creative freedom with ST:TNG.

[–] AlfredTheGreat (471) 5 years ago

I would again point out that Roddenberry molded Kirk as he saw fit. Kirk was a cowboy because that is the way Roddenberry wanted it. Kirk was never going to be the intellectual Spock was. Roddenberry most likely could have put a Kirk-like character in TNG but that did not fit the times with the rise of PC culture. Where Roddenberry really had his hands tied was politics and sex. He could not have a communist sympathizing character nor a female "stud." He also could not have a crew that indulged in orgy-like sex. The closest to weird that he could get was having Yar ask Data if he was fully functional and it died there. Otherwise it was Riker-Troi post general relationship and Picard lusting the MILF-y Dr Crusher. Very mainstream. No gay relationship nor woman banging two different guys sometimes both at once.

[–] Keelai (31865) 5 years ago

Roddenberry didn't have complete freedom since he needed approval from the network. His original pilot, "The Cage" was rejected by the network.

"NBC reportedly called the pilot "too cerebral", "too intellectual", and "too slow" with "not enough action". Rather than rejecting the series outright, though, the network commissioned a second pilot, "Where No Man Has Gone Before". This was accepted and Star Trek began production."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cage_(Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series)

Communism and capitalism don't exist in classic ST. Only in the 1980s do the greedy capitalists Ferengi debut representing Yuppies in ST:DS9.

Homosexuality was originally addressed in ST:TNG

[–] AlfredTheGreat (471) 5 years ago

He did not have complete freedom but his hands were far from being tied.

Communism was not discussed and capitalism was implied. In the Doomsday Machine Kirk tells Scotty "he just earned his paycheck for the week" in bringing up the Constellation's one phaser bank to active. In Mudd's Women there is all kinds of capitalism present with Mudd, the women seeking marriage, and the miners. In The Trouble with Tribbles the crew uses credits (i.e. paycheck) to purchase items on K-7. Trade route in "A Taste of Armageddon." I assume Corydon was getting paid for their Dilithium shipped to the Federation in "Journey to Babel."

Homosexuality was discussed in a couple brief allegory whispers versus a full on head straight (pun intended) on discussion such as having an out in the open gay human male as an ongoing character or gay culture or gay celebration. No gay bars on Risa.

[–] Keelai (31865) 5 years ago

ST had a post-scarcity economy - not capitalist.

ST and ST:TNG are two different shows from two different eras. ST never discussed homosexuality. Like I wrote, ST:TNG did.

[–] AlfredTheGreat (471) 5 years ago

I'd be interested in an explanation as to why you think that it was post scarcity versus capitalist.

I did drift into TNG when I mentioned Risa which was never mentioned on TOS. McCoy mentions Wrigley's Pleasure Planet. How do you interpret Spock's back rub of Kirk at the opening of Shore Leave? Definitely out of character for either but the scene exists nonetheless for discussion purposes. The Companion before it merges with the commissioner did not strike me as definitively female despite the universal translator.

[–] Keelai (31865) 5 years ago

Spock never rubbed Kirk's back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW5Qx7jU9pU

It's common knowledge that poverty no longer exists. Replicators are used to easily produce food and objects.

"Gene Roddenberry, creator of the original show, “stipulated before he died that there was to be no money in the Federation .” Roddenberry apparently believed that in the future, “mankind would have evolved past the need for money,” and that “humanism would strip mankind of the acquisitive tendencies it had shown throughout history, and that the use of money was a vice.”

...the United Federation of Planets... has eradicated poverty and internal strife—largely without the benefit of a monetary system."

This blogger explains it well:
https://mb21.github.io/blog/2014/07/06/money-in-the-star-trek-universe

[–] AlfredTheGreat (471) 5 years ago

Poor choice of words on my part but the implication was there as Kirk started to thank Spock so evidently Kirk was expecting a back rub from Spock which would be very unusual for two straight guys.

[–] Keelai (31865) 5 years ago

Spock is a Vulcan so it wouldn't be sexual on his part and Kirk would've known that. Anyway, back rubs most of the time aren't sexual in nature.

[–] AlfredTheGreat (471) 5 years ago

My interpretation is different and I believe that it is the correct one. When Shore Leave was first aired the viewers did not have the benefit of Amok Time to go by nor any other episode to lend clues. Also, we don't know that homosexuality does not exist on Vulcan though admittedly improbable. Maybe the better way which would support my argument is Kirk would not allow a back rub by a male if homosexuality was seriously frowned upon or even an issue of respecting Kirk's position aboard the Enterprise as Captain. At the time when the episode was first broadcast I would guess very few guys in Kirk's position would agree to a back rub from another guy.

[–] AlfredTheGreat (471) 5 years ago

Lack of poverty does not mean that capitalism is absent. Credits were mentioned in TOS and no TNG, DS9, whatever episode to my knowledge said without a doubt money did not exist in those times. Money would have to be used to "grease" the flow of goods that the Federation received from Corydon (Dilithium), Ardana (Zenite), etc. who were not at the core of the Federation or did not belong at all.

[–] Keelai (31865) 5 years ago

Not all money systems are capitalism. Capitalism is only one system. Capitalism had become obsolete on Earth and not used in the Federation according to Roddenberry. The "for profit" motive that defines capitalism was against the utopian principles that Roddenberry envisioned for his show.

Some cultures outside of the Federation did use a monetary system. The Federation issued credits in dealing with those cultures. Americans don't barter (obsolete), but will if in contact with people where currency isn't important or in use like a hunter-gatherer tribe in the Amazonian rain forest.

[–] AlfredTheGreat (471) 5 years ago

Liberal and PC do not necessarily go hand in hand. Example being the perceived treatment by women on Star Trek. In the current PC era which has run nearly two decades many PC types consider a number of female characters as sex objects as opposed to intelligent thoughtful individuals. This was even pointed out decades ago on shows such as All in The Family where Archie's SIL Meathead was all for equal rights but often pushed for a very traditional husband-wife arrangement in his own marriage.

[–] Keelai (31865) 5 years ago

1960s Star Trek was very sexist. Originally, Roddenberry tried to have the second in command a strong women but she didn't test well. She's in the original pilot called "The Cage". Even the tight sweaters and semi-nude females in recent movies show they still have sexist issues.

The All in the Family reference to Mike's sexism is perfect because there's a truth in it. He can preach against Archie's racism, but he can't see his own sexism. That's more a commentary on people's hypocrisy. In a sense, Roddenberry's treatment of women in Trek is similar.

[–] Satan2016 (23309) 5 years ago

You have NO idea what liberal means today compared to the 60s. There was free speech and no SJW Gestapo back then.

[–] Keelai (31865) 5 years ago

What makes you think I wasn't a liberal back in the 60s?

Anyway, I agree the younger generation was more about free speech, open expression and ideas in the 1960s. Conservatives were freaking out when they saw young people wearing flags and men growing their hair collar length. The irony is that conservatives eventually ended up doing the same thing.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

That's a bizarre thing to write because it's common knowledge that Gene Roddenberry was liberal and he was delivering pro-liberal messages throughout his TV show

That's the point: he was a liberal back in the day. Nowadays, he fits into the far-right fascist profile, which shows us his true deep nazi nature. We shouldn't excuse his fascist and racist behavior because back then he deluded himself thinking he was really a liberal.

[–] Keelai (31865) 5 years ago

You liberally use the "fascist" term with no true understanding of its meaning.

Anyway, Roddenberry was a secular humanist. His show's egalitarian philosophy defines many Trekkies and Trekkers also. I went to a ST convention and was surprised by the large variety of fans I saw. All races, all ages, multi-racial, religious and ethnici, disabled, equal number of males and females. I ended up in a conversation with a few fans who all agreed about the positive message that Roddenberry's show delivered about the future and fraternity among everyone.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

⚫ (1) There were white males with positive traits in Star Trek.

I know what you'll say: well, only the main character. But NO. Secondary white male actors played characters having positive traits to. I know. It's something hard to face, but you need to face it: what was the need for that?? White males having positive traits??? So disgusting. How can somebody be so offensive and insensitive towards oppressed non-white people??

Thats's a sure symptom of fascism, but it's not the only one in Roddenbarry.

⚫ (2) In Star Trek technical fields were populated by men.

I know. It's something painful to talk about.

Uhura? Communications. Later on in TNG you have 4 women... 2 playing a medical role and one playing a psychological role. Was the nazi-fascist-sexist Roddenbarry suggesting women are more likely to be attracted to fields related to people instead of related to things? How did he dare to suggest such a sexist and nazi thing? What's next?? Painting svasticas in the Enterprise?? Killing Jews??

Everybody knows that gender is a pure social construct. But Roddenberry?? He suggested the opposite! He was a fascist!!! Probably even a women abuser!!! Who knows how many women he raped!!!

But that's not all. It gets much WORSE:

⚫ And (3) Uhura kissed Kirk.

So disgusting.

Uhura should have humiliated Kirk. She should have shown her racial superiority to any inferior white male like Kirk. Instead of that, showing the writer's deep racism, she kissed him. How Roddenberry could create such a racist scene??

Roddenbarry deluded himself thinking he was liberal. He was just another poor whitey reactionary egalitarian, in other words, a racist fascist.

[–] AlfredTheGreat (471) 5 years ago

I am going to try to address your statements w/o having full understanding of your background which can lead to issues with accuracy.

If you are saying that Roddenberry never criticized white males that is inaccurate. He may have not criticize the main characters on the Enterprise but a lot of the flawed/ villain guests were white males.

Technical (professional) fields were not dominated by white males. Ariel Shaw - law. Dr Janice Lester - archeologist. Dr Wallace - Medical. Dr Daystrom - computer engineering. The problem was that women or non-white males were often portrayed as emotionally unstable and quite a few of the women incapable of keeping their skirt down or pants up.

In isolation I have no problem with Uhura's kiss as it was not her will but the post series analysis of some kind of big step forward for equality just does not hold true. Better was Lt Boma in "The Galileo Seven" of which the effort of a self-thinking black man too readily faded away. It would have been good if Boma could have been around for other episodes.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

This post makes no sense. Montalban was an actor taking roles to make a living. He himself would only be facing controversy if there were accusations of him behaving toward women in those ways in real life.

[–] AlfredTheGreat (471) 5 years ago

Many PC types have a hard time separating character from actor especially today. Further, many of these same people think that an actor should be burdened with weighing a role in terms of how offensive it may be. They would howl at Carroll O'Connor today if he were auditioning for the role of Archie Bunker w/o understanding that the character often points out flaws of prejudiced people. As has been said AITF could not even get on the air today even though it criticizes prejudiced people.

[–] Keelai (31865) 5 years ago

RE: Montalban. Once again, the problem is that people are judging with a 2018 perspective. That movie was made in the 1940s. I like Whoopie Goldberg's comment when she says people are mistaken that it was about sex when it's only about snuggling. Sex outside of marriage in a movie was forbidden unless there was a lesson.

She clearly wants to stay and is playing hard to get. Watch her face when she first says "You know on second thought, I really can't stay" It was a way to get men to become or stay interested. Women were expected not to be openly assertive and it's obvious they're flirting or playing. There's a funny role reversal at the end of the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MFJ7ie_yGU

Everyone needs to lighten up! It's a wonderful song.

[–] whynotwriteme (7120) 5 years ago

I thought you were going to talk about the decision to cast a Mexican actor as an Indian person of Asian descent. I'm surprised Khan hasn't attracted some flak for that yet.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

And he wasn't Mestizo Mexican, either. Both of his parents immigrated from Spain. But he still faced prejudice in Hollywood.