[ SECRET POST #2804 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2804 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #401.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 2 - unrelated .gifs ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Do people make that accusation often? I've never heard it.

OP

[(Anonymous)]

Not often, no, but I made that secret when I was pissed off after reading some idiot try to claim that T'hy'la was queer-baiting. And this person is CONSTANTLY crapping on Gene Roddenberry to defend Bob Orci. Which, okay, I fully agree that Roddenberry wasn't perfect. But he took far greater risks and actually pushed the envelope in his time. Something which Orci hasn't done. AT ALL. In fact, I'd say reboot Trek is less progressive than TOS (which is saying something!).

Re: OP

[ketita]

A lot of people these days have issues with contextualization. They can't see the space between "progressive in its day" and "progressive today".
fwiw I agree with you heartily about the current movies, and that's one of my big gripes with them. I think that part of the point of Star Trek - regardless of how well it succeeded in each incarnation or episode - was asking cultural, moral, and philosophical questions. Often the characters were forced to deal with conflicts that I thought were challenging not just in a 'shoot 'em up' kind of way.
The new movies don't do that at all.

Re: OP

[silverr]

Agreed 1000% with both you and OP.

I was thinking of this point just the other day, because I got into a discussion about how the messages (explicit and implicit) in "Taste of Armageddon" might have been viewed back in the day in relation to the Vietnam War.

Re: OP

[insanenoodlyguy]

This +100

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

This. For exambple, Uhura might have had more of a role in the reboot movies, but when you add in context her role is actually farrr less progressive. Which is why I'm glad that Abram's wanted to give Uhura a bigger role in the movies, I am still pissed as hell at how he did it.

Re: OP

[ex_mek82]

Ah'yup. This reminds me of an op-ed somewhere -I can't remember where exactly-, wherein the writer remarked that each Trek series sometimes "echoed" the times of the real world, like certain themes, et al. I'll admit I'm not a huge Trek fan (I like TNG, but that's about it), but that was one of the things I thought was unique about it. And if Trek is supposed to echo the times we live in, well... I wonder what that says about the reboot movies.

Re: OP

[ellensmithee]

I hope not much. Abrams was supposedly never a fan of Star Trek, so I'm guessing he just doesn't get it on a deeper level.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think that calling it queer baiting is idiotic, it's a legit opinion of something that is up to opinion. You're a shipper and maybe you just don't like that opinion but calling anyone idiot for disagreeing with your interpretation isn't mature, OP.
Nowadays writers get called out for much less honestly and no one is called idiot for that.