Re:Why did science fiction stop moving forward?
by mikeash on Monday September 25, 2017 @03:35PM
(#15333357)
Was putting a Russian guy and a black woman on the bridge of the Enterprise a nuanced thing? It strikes me that the original Star Trek was fairly blatant in this respect. It may seem nuanced looking back because we see nothing special about something like a white man and a black woman kissing on TV, but at the time it was about as subtle as a stick of dynamite.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why did science fiction stop moving forward?
by alexasmyths on Monday September 25, 2017 @05:10PM
(#15334191)
No, I didn't meant to say it was.
My point is the lines were easier drawn then - but not in 2017.
1950 was less nuanced. Black people were not allowed on TV, it was 'shocking' to have them there. An easy choice, in retrospect.
In 2017 - real social progress is complicated, it's not black and white. No pun intended :). I do not think that 'social progress' - in the populist sense, defined by the slightly-left-of-centre popular social voices - will have history fully behind them. Surely in many ways, but think it's much more complicated now.
Re:Why did science fiction stop moving forward?
by TeMPOraL on Monday September 25, 2017 @03:54PM
(#15333537)
Still, they also had a solid story to tell.
Re:Why did science fiction stop moving forward?
by mikeash on Tuesday September 26, 2017 @09:09AM
(#15338262)
I agree that a solid story is key, but I don't see the connection. Maybe for a setting where diversity is fundamentally part of it (the Discovery cast might not work well in a production of Macbeth, say) but for something like Star Trek it seems completely separate. You need a good story with a diverse cast, and you need a good story without a diverse cast.