The Potential Pitfalls of Modernization in Media
 |
| Image description: A promo image for the rebooted Battlestar Galactica, in which the characters are arrayed like the famous painting, The Last Supper. The modern BSG adaptation is a terrific sci-fi series with complex characters, fascinating lore, and even some interesting representation. But for all its triumphs, it, like many pieces of "modern" media, falls into the pitfalls of modernizing older pieces of media, relying on sex and romance where none needs to exist. In today's post, I dive deep into this issue, discussing how and why it happens, unpacking examples, and discussing how media can do better. |
I couldn’t resist talking about Star Trek as an
example of this first, thanks in large part to the perfect timing of it – the
post was “due” not only right after the third season finale of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, but it happened to be right around Star Trek
Day, aka, the anniversary of when the very first episode of Star Trek
aired back in 1966. Part of my desire to talk about Star Trek was also
because it’s very suited as an example of why modernization is not always good
for a franchise and thus I had a lot of ideas to unpack. However, the concept
of modernization in media is actually a much larger topic, one that I want to
explore today, as there are so many more examples than just what Star Trek
gives us.
Over the past two-and-a-half decades, so much has changed
about the way we consume media and has made certain things more accessible than
ever before. From my childhood to now, the advent of online streaming platforms
like Netflix and beyond have allowed us to watch media from around the globe
instantly, being exposed to so many new stories, ideas, and even cultures. They
also allow for more creators to make media thanks to these platforms also
acting as studios in their own right, and the opportunities that bring is
doubtless very exciting. But at the same time, sometimes modern media tends to
believe its own press, thinking that, simply because they are newer and
fresher, they are automatically better, more relevant, and more diverse.
Of course, that isn’t always the case. While modern media is
able to better explore certain topics and ideas than the media of the past,
sometimes our changing times allow for media to more readily explore sex,
violence, and foul language in ways that can, in some cases, remove any
subtlety in storytelling. While portraying these things is not necessarily a
bad thing and a piece of media doesn’t automatically become good or bad because
of them, I think that in some cases, this feature of modern media actually
makes things less accessible rather than more so.
Especially in the case of media’s more heavy emphasis on sex
and/or romance, it definitely makes these things less accessible to aspec
people. Rather than the advent of more modern storytelling giving aspec people
the opportunity to be represented, sometimes it actually makes things worse.
Obviously, as an aspec geek – and as someone who loves both modern and classic
media – I think this is a massive oversight. But more than an oversight, there
are certain issues with the modernization of media that are not often discussed,
so that’s what we’re going to discuss today. Much like in my previous post,
this post is going to analyze whether modern media has too much of a sex and/or
romance obsession, and will also explore the ways the supposed diversity and
inclusivity of today’s media landscape has yet to extend to aspec people.
What I Mean
When I Say “Modernization”
“Modernization” can refer to a lot of different things when
it comes to media, but for my analysis, I’m going to be exploring the very
specific instance of when a piece of media is brought into the 21st century
from wherever it originated. For instance, in my previous post – mentioned in
my introduction – I focused on the changes between the Star Trek of the
1960’s and the Star Trek of now, highlighting how the needle hasn’t
moved much in terms of representation between these two time periods and has
sometimes even become worse. In the case of Star Trek, this is thanks to
the continuation of a larger franchise, allowing multiple stories and pieces of
media to all be grouped under the same umbrella. But modernization of media
takes many forms, and sometimes this means “updating” the media for “modern
times.”
In general, I feel like this concept is something of a hot
button issue and can get a bit political at times, especially the more and more
prevalent it becomes to make remakes, reboots, and sequels of older media to
try and update its messages. In many ways, that in and of itself is probably
the biggest danger we have when it comes to the modernization of media.
However, for my analysis, I am only going to be focusing on the way certain
updates portray romance and sex, as well as highlighting the way many of them
are actually worse for aspec representation (or even just non-romantic and/or non-sexual characters) now than they were in the past. To me, the creators of
modern media remakes or sequels seem to be under the impression that a modern
version of these stories will automatically be more enlightened, leaving behind
the regressive attitudes of the past, but as an aspec geek, I can tell you that
is not actually the case.
In my eyes, believing this fallacy is the true danger of
modernization in media. A piece of media being made decades or even centuries
ago doesn’t automatically make it bad, just like a piece of media being made
nowadays doesn’t automatically make it good, and I think the same can be said
of the way these pieces of media portray diversity. As I’ve said many times
before, I rarely go into a piece of media expecting it to have aspec
representation or aspec-adjacent characters, and I especially don’t go looking
for it in older media. But I am sometimes surprised to find that older media
does a better job of at least being aspec-friendly than some modern media,
especially modern remakes of classics.
This is something I explored in the Star Trek-specific post as well, highlighting how sometimes the newer media actually focuses more on sex and/or romance than previous media did, thanks in large part to being freed from the constraints of a network – another symptom of modernization. As I said in my intro, in a day and age where various online streaming platforms not only broadcast but commission or even produce pieces of media, there seems to be an attitude of “anything goes” that pervades these more modern works. Therefore, sex, sexual language, nudity, and other forms of oversexualization are allowed to be used more freely, sometimes making it even harder for me to connect with modern media than the media of the past.
This, to me, is where the true tragedy of modernization
lies. By trying to bank on sex as what makes a piece of media relatable, I
believe this adds an inherent layer of aphobia to the story, regardless of
intention. These stories might not even have non-sexual and/or non-romantic
characters to be considered “aspec-adjacent,” nor are they necessarily making a
commentary on non-sexual and/or non-romantic people, the way we see in other
media. But even without these things, the idea they’re putting forth is that
sex and romance are modern staples that cannot be avoided and that updating a
piece of media automatically means including these things, which I think
severely limits their creative expression in a way that is anything but modern.
While there’s nothing wrong with including sex or romance in an updated piece
of media, or even adding a bit of “sex appeal” to it, the idea that these
things have to take priority as part of this modernization is extremely
disappointing.
That’s not to say that all modernization is a bad thing. One
of the best things that modern adaptations of classics can do is allow for more
diverse characters and different forms of representation, whether this be for
gender, race, or sexuality. Even when these things are not explicitly
portrayed, the modernization of media often allows modern fandoms to create
representation where there otherwise is none. As is true of many things, I
don’t think modernizing a piece of media is entirely black or white, nor do I
think it’s a bad thing to see certain pieces of media interpreted through a
modern-day lens. However, I think these things need to be analyzed with a
critical eye, and I think it does need to be asked why these things are less
aspec-friendly in some cases than they might have been otherwise.
When
Modernization Means Sexualization
Now that we know my basic definition of modernization, I’d
like to discuss a few more examples of where and how this happens. In fact, two
of my favorite shows of all time rather unfortunately fall under this umbrella
– BBC’s Sherlock and SyFy’s Battlestar Galactica. In the case of
Sherlock, it functions as one of many adaptations of the Sherlock Holmes
stories over the years, but breaks from common tradition by instead setting its
characters and stories in the modern era rather than in Victorian times. In the
case of Battlestar Galactica, the show is a reboot of the 1978 show of
the same name, taking many of its concepts and updating them, while also
swapping out the race and gender of many of its classic characters.
I’ve discussed Sherlock a great deal on the blog,
including diving deep into a more recent rewatch of the series, and so I’m not
going to discuss it in great depth here, especially since its sexualization is
relatively mild. However, I do think it’s worth pointing out that the series
not only leaned into the fandom ideas about Holmes being “sexy,” but especially
expanded on this idea of sex appeal and sexuality in the episode “A Scandal in
Belgravia.” In that episode, we are introduced to the modern version of Irene
Adler, who in the original story (“A Scandal in Bohemia”) was an opera singer
and in this version is a dominatrix. While I love the episode in which Irene
appears and think her character is masterfully written and portrayed, it has
always struck me as odd not only that Irene was given such an overtly sexual
job in comparison to her literary counterpart, but also that she and Sherlock
were pushed into such a heavy “ship tease.”
As I also mention in my previous posts about the subject,
this is not just something that happens only in this adaptation, however. While
other Sherlock Holmes adaptations stay in the Victorian era with their
plotlines, they themselves are modern adaptations – think, for instance, of the
Sherlock Holmes films starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law of the
early 2000s, which also make heavy use of the idea that Holmes and Adler are a
romantic couple. The idea that this romance has to exist at all is a prime example
of the issues when modern adaptations of classics come into play, something
which I will mention again later in the post.
A reliance – and perhaps overreliance – on sex and romance
is also something that the modern reboot of Battlestar Galactica is guilty of
a great deal. BSG has been off the air for over fifteen years and I admit I
haven’t seen it again since then, so my analysis will be a little less updated
than some of my more recent Sherlock analysis. But nevertheless, the
series remains one of my favorite shows and was very important to me for a long
time. Its updated characters, such as Kara “Starbuck” Thrace, were likewise
important to me, and so when I critique the show or its characters, I am doing
so from a place of love. However, it’s hard not to look at some of the choices
made by the reboot and wonder how or why they came to be, much as I did with my
post about modern Star Trek.
Both versions of BSG focus on the idea of a ragtag group of
humans who have been forced to flee their homeworlds and voyage out into space
after a bloody war with cybernetic machines known as the Cylons. Together, what
remains of humanity must work together to not only survive the Cylons and the
dangers of space, but to make it to another planet, which is seen by them as a
sort of fabled promised land – the planet Earth. The rebooted version of BSG,
meanwhile, reimagines a great deal of elements first seen in the original. For
instance, in the original series – like with many sci-fi shows of the day – the
Cylons were bulky looking metal robot people. However, in the reboot, the
Cylons can look one of two ways – they can either be terrifying metal monsters
or they can appear entirely human. In the case of the latter, I’m sure you can
guess how this played out with certain characters and how the trope of the
“sexy robot” came to full fruition thanks to characters like the Cylon model
known as Six.
Another huge reimagined element is the updating of characters’ genders, most notably in the characters of Boomer and Starbuck, who are genderswapped from male characters in the original series to female characters in the reboot. Naturally, these choices were somewhat controversial at the time, but I believe overall they represent an example of how modern media can give us some better representation and can change problematic tropes, something which series co-creator Ronald D. Moore actually discussed. More recently on a podcast with Starbuck’s actress, Katee Sackhoff, he described how the original Starbuck from the 1970’s was a “roguish, cigar-smoking, girl-chasing” hotshot, and how they felt like it was a trope that had been done to death.
 |
| Image description: Starbuck (left) and Boomer (right) as they appear in the rebooted Battlestar Galactica. |
Moore thought, therefore, that it would be interesting to portray these traits through a female character instead of a male one, and was intrigued by the friendship between Starbuck and Apollo (whom he describes as the “straight arrow” in contrast to the roguish Starbuck) when Starbuck was a roguish female character instead of a male one. However, although the dynamic between the rebooted Starbuck and Apollo is interesting, it’s also both romantic and sexual. While there is a friendship there and the two characters do obviously care about each other, it’s clear that the show was physically incapable of leaving them as friends.
While I can’t deny that the actors have absolutely dynamite chemistry and I do generally enjoy the pairing despite some of the issues they have, it’s a bit frustrating to think that the show did well in genderbending Starbuck, only to throw that character into a heterosexual relationship with Apollo – not to mention several other heterosexual (emphasis on the sexual) relationships. While generally an amazing character, it cannot be denied that Starbuck was definitely used for sex appeal at various times and was undoubtedly lusted after by the presumed straight male audience, something which is even referenced in comedy series, The Big Bang Theory.
While I love the updates that BSG made to its
representation, the fact that it includes a lot of very sexualized elements –
from sexy robots to convoluted sexual love triangles to lots of characters
showing skin, both human and Cylon alike – cannot be ignored. Again, like I
said earlier, there is nothing inherently wrong with including these plot
points or elements amidst the rest of the plot, nor is there anything wrong
with adding in female characters and giving them love interests. Boomer,
Starbuck, the female president of the series Laura Roslin, and other female
characters included in the plot are great; but that doesn’t change the fact
that the idea of a modern remake falls down a bit when it’s so aggressively
focused on sex and/or romance.
Something I pointed out earlier this year in my second
“Redefining Romance” post is the tendency of some modern adaptations to add in
romance where none existed previously. I’ve noticed this is especially
prevalent in adaptations of classic novels, and in that post, I used the
example of the Jules Verne adventure novel Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the
Seas. While the book has zero romance, modern adaptations often include
romance by genderbending characters or making up new ones; but this is only one
example of this occurring. Another example I can think of that falls into this
trap comes thanks to the film adaptation of J.R.R Tolkein’s novel The Hobbit.
The story centers on the quest undertaken by bravest little
hobbit of them all, Bilbo Baggins, who travels with a group of dwarves to
reclaim their stolen homeland. The Hobbit begins setting up the world
that is later fleshed out and expanded upon in the iconic series The Lord of the Rings, but something that is roundly not included in the original
children’s fantasy adventure is any kind of romance. However, when the novel was
adapted into a trilogy of films from 2012 to 2014, that changed thanks to the
addition of a new character, Tauriel.
In many senses, there’s nothing wrong with Tauriel as a character, despite not being present in the original novel, and she adds some interesting things to the story, especially when you consider the story is otherwise severely lacking when it comes to female characters. However, it’s frustrating to know that a great deal of her story is tied up in a completely manufactured love triangle between her, Legolas, and the dwarven warrior Kili – something which becomes even more disappointing from my own point of view, when you consider how Legolas otherwise has aspec vibes if you choose to analyze him through that lens.
 |
| Image description: Legolas and Tauriel from the film adaptations of The Hobbit. |
Despite Tauriel being an interesting enough character, there is no reason why a romance arc had to be added to the story or why a whole character had to be invented for that purpose. In my opinion, this is also a great example of how modern media gets in its own way; in this case, it feels like a lot of the good that would have been done by including more women in the story is undone when the ultimate purpose of that woman is to be part of a pointless love triangle. When modernization relies too heavily on sex and/or romance, is it really as modern as it wants to be, or does it actually end up feeling more archaic, ignoring the triumphs of the past in favor of something more marketable? In my view, I will always say it’s the latter.
To that end, many of the examples of modern adaptations also
raise interesting questions about what exactly constitutes “modern” in the
first place since, by its very definition, the idea of what “modern” means is
always changing. While Sherlock and the rebooted Battlestar Galactica
are both more contemporary than the source material they’re based off of, they
don’t seem as “modern” anymore by a 2025 definition. Even the trio of films
that stemmed from The Hobbit are already over a decade old. As such, the
desire for modernization often means that even these more modern adaptations go
stale after a while, leading to a desire for even greater modernization as time
goes on. I believe this is a problem for a few reasons, and something that
annoys me deeply most of the time. This is especially true when we consider
that, even when these newer updates try to adapt to changing times, they still
manage to fall short of that goal more often than not.
How Modern
Media Overcorrects and Underrepresents
The modernization of media can sometimes allow us to redo
certain outdated tropes or genre staples in ways that can be either bad or
good. As I said earlier, I know this element of media modernization can be
highly polarizing; as I myself have demonstrated in this post, not every
element of an older piece of media needs to be updated, nor is every trope from
a bygone era something we’re duty-bound to fix. Additionally, I believe that
sometimes it’s better to simply leave a piece of media alone rather than try to
modernize it, because attempts to do so will only make things worse or will
create more problems. Those are all issues for a much longer discussion than I
have the time or space for in this post. Instead, what I want to discuss here
is the tendency some media has to overcorrect these mistakes while actually
missing out on the larger picture.
For an example of this, I’d like to turn to another
oft-discussed franchise on this blog – the fantasy video game franchise, Dragon
Age. Now, the series has always included dark elements and sometimes this
means it relies on some problematic tropes or portrayals; as such, there are
definitely elements of Dragon Age which rightfully should have been
updated for the more modern games. Of course, while these more regressive tropes
aren’t entirely absent from the series, they are certainly corrected in many
ways for the later two entries in the series. But as the reviews of the fourth
(and likely final game) in the series, Dragon Age: The Veilguard, prove,
it’s entirely possible to overcorrect and to be so afraid of falling back on
outdated tropes that you actually end up telling stories that fail to challenge
the status quo in any meaningful way.
Naturally, this is something that extends to representation
for various queer identities, as I’ve explored in previous posts. In an attempt
to correct certain mistakes of the past, such as transphobic jokes, the series
has gone through great efforts to craft better representation, but some of it
comes across as deeply out of place, such as The Veilguard’s use of
modern-day terminology such as “trans” or “non-binary.” In the case of its
canonically non-binary character, Taash, the overcorrection leads to another
instance of a character being subjected to bad writing and as such being
lambasted by the fandom, something I explore in my post all about what Taash
and their representation can teach us. Another example is how the companions of
that same game were all identified behind the scenes as pansexual and how the
writers claimed this would be important and/or relevant for their characters
in-game, only to have this largely not be the case and have the idea of the
characters’ pansexuality be more of a game mechanic for player romance than
anything else.
These examples prove that modern media’s tendency to
overcorrect the mistakes of the past can actually have the opposite effect.
While it’s nice to see that the writers have learned from certain criticisms,
especially when it comes to representation, there is still a great deal of
underrepresentation – or, even in some instances, misrepresentation – that
tends to run rampant. Of course, as an aspec fangirl, I have seen firsthand how
Dragon Age habitually underrepresents or misrepresents aspec identities,
and have discussed at length how the franchise has, in some cases, willfully
ignored aspec identities and the way those identities have been poorly treated
in the past.
Something that many people have complained about when it
comes to not only modern Dragon Age, but modern media in general, is the
way these stories tend to focus on glib humor and jokes rather than on any type
of real, true character development, and I believe this overcorrection is part
of why it’s so difficult to find any type of meaningful representation these
days. One of my biggest complaints with the modernization of media is that it
seeks to modernize the formula and yet rarely allows non-sexual and/or
non-romantic people to be part of the narrative. But how can there possibly be
any meaningful way to do that when some of this modern, overcorrected media is
far more concerned with telling jokes than it is creating complex characters or
stories?
That’s not to say every piece of modern or modernized media
suffers from the pitfalls of overcorrection, of course, nor that every piece of
modern media is over-reliant on what has colloquially been called “Marvel
humor.” But I do believe that most modernized media suffers from the pitfalls
of underrepresentation, even when the media itself seems to believe its own
hype and considers itself to be diverse or tolerant. In chasing trends and
attempting to be seen as relevant, modern media often ignores the fact that
storytelling can and should be used to introduce people to stories they’ve
never seen before, allowing them to explore worlds they’ve never imagined. What
should be relatable is the universal emotions that underpin that and the
universally applicable stories that allow us all to see ourselves in media, and
that to me is the true crisis of underrepresentation. Even in a piece of media
that doesn’t include an aspec or aspec-adjacent character, there can still be
opportunities to tell stories that resonate with aspec people or queer people
of all kinds, but modern media often squanders these opportunities, instead
focusing on an effort to clean up past storylines and subvert expectations.
But the thing is, not every expectation has to be subverted
and not every trope is a bad thing. While there are absolutely some tropes we should consider ignoring when creating new pieces of media, there are some tropes that are timeless and can actually make for spectacular
storytelling. At the beginning of this post – and at great length in my
previous one – I mentioned Star Trek: Strange New Worlds and how it too,
for all of its triumphs, falls into the problems of modernization. I would
argue that it too can sometimes overcorrect and underrepresent as well,
focusing more on fixing certain tropes and blindspots from The Original Series than it does on developing its cast of characters.
It’s not a coincidence that my favorite episode of the
recently-concluded season three was “Terrarium,” which focused squarely on the Enterprise’s
pilot, Erica Ortegas, who gets stranded on a planet’s very hostile moon with a
member of the even more hostile species, the Gorn. This is especially traumatic
for Ortegas, who previously suffered an injury at the hands of the Gorn at the
beginning of the season. Despite the fear and prejudice they both experience at
first, both castaways find camaraderie with each other when they realize they
are both female pilots, and together they not only fight to survive the hostile
landscape, but get to know each other as equals and even friends. In the end,
Ortegas even views the experience as not only one of friendship, but one that
proves to both individuals that they are “no longer broken,” their interaction
heavily imbued with meaning and emotion.
Despite not having anything aspec in it, this story resonated
with me deeply as an aspec viewer, and just as a viewer in general, thanks to
its ability to tell a beautiful and meaningful story. The more “modern” elements
of the series allowed this story to be enhanced by having the Gorn pilot look
sufficiently alien and frightening, but also somewhat approachable in the end,
all of which was further enhanced by the fact that the Gorn could not speak.
Compared to the low-tech Gorn that appeared in TOS, this is a win for
modernization; but this modern story is great primarily because its messages
are timeless, and it’s only its aesthetic that is modern.
When we modernize stories, we can do so much – we can
represent things we’ve never had a chance to represent before, we can update older
tropes or pieces of media to be more approachable, and we can lend dramatic
stories the weight they deserve through more updated technology. But sometimes
the reality falls short of the ideal and instead we see media ignore
representation, forsake storytelling, and abandon its roots all together in favor
of romance, sex-appeal, or playing it safe. As long as these pitfalls remain,
there will always be some danger associated with the modernization of media
and, since I don’t think modernization is going away any time soon, that makes
it all the more important to talk about it, now and into the future.
 |
| Image description: A promo image of Erica Ortegas from Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, easily one of my favorite characters on the show. |
Something I often say as someone who was born in 1995 is that I feel like I was strangely on the cusp of a lot of technological changes. For example, I still remember using the landline phone (complete with its long cord), the first computer we got, our old bulky televisions, and the sound of the dial-up modem as it connected to the internet. Soon, I saw how cell phones became ubiquitous, then got smaller, then got bigger and more complex again. I saw how computers went from big boxy desktops to sleek laptops (like the one on which I’m writing this post). I have even joked with my Gen Z coworkers that, strange as it is to think about now, I remember when Netflix was a DVD-by-mail service or when seeing a piece of media meant a trip down to the local Blockbuster.
The point is, technology has changed a great deal very
rapidly and, along with it, so too has the way we consume media. But as time
continues on, it’s interesting to see how nostalgia for previous times also
kicks up and how soon enough, the media of my formative years are going to pass
into that nostalgic territory. While all this media is more accessible than
ever before, meaning anyone can watch it at anytime, I know that a big part of
modernization means wanting to capitalize on nostalgia more and more. In
today’s modern media landscape, the media of my formative years might inspire
new art and storytelling – the way the iconic media of the 1980’s inspired
shows like Stranger Things to spring up as loving homages – or we may
see reboots, remakes, and sequels to these pieces, attempting to tell new
stories alongside the older ones.
Because this media will doubtless be consumed, changed, or corrected
over the years, I think it’s important to have conversations about the places
where updating it has fallen flat or have sometimes even moved us in the
opposite direction. As I said, I don’t think modernization is going away and I
believe it will in fact continue to evolve, giving us new metrics of what it
means for a piece of media to be “modern.” As media continues to strive to
create representation or blaze new trails, I hope we can see some of this media
create aspec representation or, at the very least, become less reliant on
romance and/or sex where none need exist. While I don’t believe these
storytelling elements will even become irrelevant, nor should they, I’d like to
see a world where modernization of media means this increased diversity and
where “modern” in and of itself means seeing things through a more enlightened
lens.
Comments
Post a Comment