Strange New Worlds & Unsettling New Concerns

Originally published in Spring 2021

Back in late 2015, when we first got the news that a new Star Trek series would be coming to television, I wrote a list of everything I wanted to see. Having so often been accused of watching television with a checklist, I figured that I might as well create one. But what I really wanted was what Star Trek has always promised its audience: That it will challenge us, make us think, and push us forward. Sometimes that’s done with the ideas and commentary in the storytelling, and sometimes that’s done with the types of characters we see on screen.

Since Discovery has been on the air – and later Picard and Lower Decks – it’s become clear that some fans have been more challenged by this “New Golden Age of Trek” than others, as the same conversations seem to bubble to the top of fan discourse over and over again. Some of these critiques are made in good faith by fans who want their Star Trek to the best that it can be. But then there are the complaints, which are not good faith arguments – things like the accusation that Star Trek suddenly has a SJW agenda; or the unfounded declaration that any random group of 20 people would not include this many queer people; or the direct racist, sexist, queerphobic and otherwise bigoted attacks on the show, actors, and creators. The gross underbelly of the Star Trek fandom has been on display quite a bit over the last few years, easily identifiable by anyone who cares to take a look.

And then there are the comments that are written in code – or rather, coded language. Coded language is a term or phrase that sounds innocuous or reasonable to most people, but has a hidden meaning for a select few who happen to be “in the know.” We’re surrounded by coded language. In political discourse – where you might also hear the term “dog whistle” – candidates use coded language to send a message to certain groups of people without alienating others. Some familiar examples include:

• “Tough on crime” – implies support for racist policing policies
• “Family values” – interpreted by Evangelicals as “conservative Christian values”
• “Religious freedom” – lawful discrimination against the LGBTQIA2S+ Community

Obviously, this is not only present in politics. In tabletop gaming, you may hear complaints of “upsetting the balance” when an old rulebook is updated to address past problems that made marginalized groups feel unwelcome. And in Star Trek – a show that is often championed for being progressive – parts of the fanbase have begun calling the new shows “too political,” when what they really mean is “more diverse than I am comfortable with.” Even more bothersome is that the phrase “Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek” has come to mean “only the Star Trek created through 2005” (even though Gene passed away in 1991 and didn’t have much creative control over the television shows after the third season of The Next Generation, and little-to-no control over the feature films after The Motion Picture – no matter how many angry memos he sent). But now, if someone tells you that they’re “a fan of Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek,” what they’re really telling you is that they hate the Kelvin Universe films and the Kurtzman-era television shows. There’s also a pretty good chance they have some racist, misogynistic, homophoic, transphobic and/or otherwise bigoted views.

Now that we’ve covered all of that, let’s talk about Strange New Worlds (finally, I know), the third live action show in production in this new era of Trek. And I have concerns…

The first of which is the cast, which will be led by three white actors – Anson Mount as Captain Christopher Pike, Rebecca Romijn as Number One, and Ethan Peck as Spock. If SNW takes its cues from The Original Series, like many fans are expecting, that’s our triumvirate, our Kirk-Spock-McCoy. And wouldn’t you know it? The same subset of the fanbase that takes every opportunity to disparage Discovery immediately started claiming that this new series was “proof” that the Star Trek franchise could not survive with a flagship show led by a Black woman. Yikes.

Is it inherently problematic that all the main characters we have so far are white? In my opinion: Yes. But it’s a problem that comes from CBS essentially greenlighting a series based on a 55-year-old pilot. In this context, it’s a position that is pretty unique to this show. Now, I’m not saying here that Pike, Spock, or Number One should have been recast or reimagined. Over the decades, these characters have been part of Star Trek lore to varying degrees, and their relationships and histories have been established. But I am saying that the people making this show need to be very aware of this situation and the message that it’s already sending.

Which leads me to my other big concern: How the creative team is describing the show. Shortly after the announcement of the series, Executive Producer Akiva Goldsman told Variety, “We’re going to try to harken back to some classical ‘Trek’ values, to be optimistic, and to be more episodic.” Classic. Optimistic. Episodic. All characteristics that the new Trek shows were critiqued for not having. Many of us heard this news, and were excited to have more different kinds of Trek on the air. But other fans interpreted this to mean that the Star Trek creators were listening to the fans that had been pushing back, and admitting that they had been wrong about Disco.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m fully in the “super excited” camp when it comes to SNW. I might honestly be Number One’s biggest fan and I can’t wait to finally really see her in action. But that doesn’t alleviate my fear that this series could easily become a “safe harbor” for the part of the fandom that embraces hateful and bigoted people, especially if their assumptions and interpretations go unchecked and unchallenged.

This is all the more reason for the creative team to double down on the messages of Star Trek – inclusivity, equity, equality, and desire for constant societal and self improvement. They need to show us, definitively, that they are not bending to the demands of this loud, intolerant sect. Fill the ship with people of every gender, sexuality, race, and religion and let us get to know them. Allow those things to inform their characters. Introduce us to Captain Pike’s boyfriend. Tell us stories that consider new ideas and question what it is to be human. Make it explicit that bigotry of any kind is unacceptable on a Starfleet bridge and in Star Trek fandom. I’m looking for the same thing I was looking for in 2015, and the same thing I’ve seen in Trek for decades: Challenge us, make us think, and push us forward. It might get uncomfortable, but it is when we are uncomfortable that we are learning and growing.

We, as fans, need to continue to hold the creators of this new era of Trek accountable, but we also need to hold each other accountable. We cannot allow the Star Trek fandom to be a place where it is safe to spew hatred. We cannot allow “classic, optimistic, and episodic” to become shorthand for “cisgender, heterosexual, and white.” Ultimately, the way to take the power out of coded language is to decode it – call it out, expose that hidden meaning, and confront it.

I hope my concerns turn out to be unfounded. I hope our creative team has a plan in place to make it undeniable that the bridge of Captain Pike’s Enterprise and the larger Star Trek universe do not welcome hatred. And I hope the Star Trek fandom does the same.