You know what the best "Star Trek" episode about racism is?
It's not "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield", which is a metaphor for how maybe both the people oppressing and the people being oppressed should calm down.
"Deep Space Nine" understood this back in 1999. "Chimera" is an episode that's largely about how angry the production team are at being unable to just acknowledge that LGBTQ+ people... exist.
This is what's really frustrating about "The Serene Squall" it reduces LGTBQ+ stuff back to metaphor, so we don't actually have to talk about Spock's queerness directly - because that might make some viewers uncomfortable.
If you want to make Spock queer, there's precedent.
While the show pats itself for doing this, it makes the non-binary character - played by a prominent trans actor - into somebody lying about their identity to gain access to spaces they shouldn't get into.
Meanwhile, the plot of the episode is based around the idea that a humanitarian crisis "on the border" is just a ruse organised by criminal gangs disguising themselves as advocates for the dispossessed.
Again, "Picard" is a show with very serious problems - believe me - but at least it went out of its way in its second season to make it clear that human rights abuses related to immigration were bad.
Which you'd assume would be fairly straightforward.
Similarly, "The Serene Squall" seems to have a similar view to "Day of Honour" from "Voyager", arguing that stories of poor dispossessed and victimised refugees are just traps to ensnare bleeding heart idealists.
Watching the first season of "Strange New Worlds", particularly after the twofer of "Lift Us Where Suffering Cannot Reach" and "The Serene Squall", it seems the show's conservatism is more than just aesthetic.
We have reached the point in the "Top Gun" discourse where the "Top Gun" discourse consists of debates over whether there should be "Top Gun" discourse.
To be fair, "Maverick" gets away with what it does by (a.) being less jingoistic than "Top Gun" and (b.) being more open in its jingoism than most of its competitors.
You go into "Maverick" knowing you're getting a recruitment film. That's not true of "Captain Marvel", say.
I will say the biggest barrier for "Maverick" for me, that wasn't there with the "Mission: Impossible" films, is that it does really try to sell me on Tom Cruise is "a nice guy."
I don't necessarily buy that. I do buy that he is "the living manifestation of destiny", though.
An interesting aspect of the "Mission: Impossible" franchise compared to other big franchises is that it's not really about fighting advancing impersonal technology, which is even there in "Top Gun: Maverick."
It's very literally an old-school action hero fighting postmodernism.
Obviously that theme is the subtext of the modern "James Bond" franchise, but it's couched metaphors about drone warfare that makes Bond outdated - until he's not!
I love that the later "Mission: Impossible" movies are like, "Ethan is fighting the very idea of moral ambiguity."
I kind of admire that the big moral and dramatic stakes of these later "Mission: Impossible" movies are, "Just let Ethan Hunt be the kind of hero who does cool stunts and punches people in the face without burdening him with angst or ambiguity."
I am quite enjoying Christopher Cantwell and Cafu’s “Iron Man” run, in large part because it feels like a very clever exploration of what superheroes should be, as fictional archetypes.
(Iron Man #1.)
There’s a sense that this version of Tony Stark is quite exhausted by the sort of genre shifts that have taken root in American comics in the past few decades, where these characters are effectively demi-gods, and so wants to get back to basics.
(Iron Man #1.)
As somebody whose biggest issue with the MCU is its refusal to deal with these implications, and who loves plenty of comics that do, it’s kinda cool.
It’s nice to see a hero yearn for a return to the genre’s earlier lower-stakes days, played as mid-life crisis.
“A Good Man Goes to War” is very much about the idea that the Doctor probably shouldn’t be (or at least shouldn’t primarily be) an unstoppable universal force like “the Oncoming Storm.”
It’s something of a deconstruction of Davies’ post-Time War characterisation of the Doctor.
It’s very much a deconstruction of the angsty “darker and edgier” version of “Doctor Who” that could be seen to extend from having a protagonist who committed multiple premeditated genocides.
It drops him into a rape revenge narrative, and points out how that just doesn’t work.
It doesn’t work because he’s a children’s television character, and isn’t fit for purpose.
It’s deliberate how uncomfortable the Eleventh Doctor feels dealing with this stuff, and very pointed that his attempt to raise an army to solve a problem through force… doesn’t work.
Not that he needs me to say it, but @SiddhantAdlakha is a gentleman and a scholar, and one of the finest critics to write about the Marvel Cinematic Universe from a place of knowledge and insight.
Also, it is frankly terrifying that @ign would consider replacing him as a reviewer on #Loki because he gave an opinion on the show that rabid Marvel fans didn’t like.
It’s a potentially chilling critical precedent. “Validate fans’ opinions, or else…!”
It’s weird how insecure fans get about these things.
There are plenty of my peers and people I respect who hold different opinions than I do.
However, I am secure enough in my opinion to know in my heart that “Demolition Man” is a true masterpiece of American cinema.