You obviously didn't understand anything I am trying to argue for and missed the entire point of the argument.
Oh, snap. What a good argument. You have 100% made me realize my mistake.
Still, based on your analysis, I'd like you to comment on my conclusion. I'd just like you to say whether, based on your analysis, this is correct or not.
"Discovery, in its demographics, is not exceptional, and not worse than some previous Trek."
I don't argue with people who don't even understand the premise of the argument because it's a waste of time. If you go back and see why I argued that STD is a terrible show then we can have a conversation about it.
I don't argue with people who don't even understand the premise of the argument because it's a waste of time. If you go back and see why I argued that STD is a terrible show then we can have a conversation about it.
If what Astro is saying is not your argument, then I suppose I too may have misunderstood your argument. If that is the case, then it would ensure clarity of everyone involved what exactly your argument is, if you re-explained it in different terms.
From where I am standing the argument seems to be
A. Discovery is forcing diversity more than any Star Trek series of the past
B. Discovery is continuing a Hollywood trend of demonizing white males
C. Discovery is thus not a good series because of A and B
Which we (meaning Nad, Astro, and even I to an extent) have showed the demographics of past Star Trek series to show that Discovery is no exception to the diversity of past Trek series and is not more diverse than some of them. While the diversity may be more forced because it was talked about more, which is a point I am considering, just having a conversation about diversity does not mean it is a forced action. The diversity isn't honestly bothersome in the slightest. It is rather 1:1 for the most part between the races in the series.
Then I brought up the fact that I acknowledge the Hollywood trend of white male-dismissal. But that I did not see anything in Discovery which alluded that to be the case in this series. There have been no racial or gendered tensions brought up in this series regarding white people or men as per Hollywood trend.
The moment we get Burnham/Culber/Tyler/Tilly/some other non-white and/or female person in the show bringing out the race or gender card against Lorca/Stamets/some other white guy that their opinions or actions should be dismissed of validity or castigated because Lorca and Stamets are white and/or men, then you'd have a point. But we have not seen anything like that. So the point is moot because the evidence does not exist for this show.
So please, clarify what your argument is.
Admiral of the Haus of GaghGagh, Starbase level 94, we are not accepting members at this time.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
Bashir being Middle Eastern is speculation. The actor is Middle Eastern, and the writers once mentioned envisioning his character as such, but it is never established in canon. He could just as easily be white.
Umm, there’s a DS9 episode where Bashir’s parents come for a visit, Doctor Bashir I Presume? I think is the title. They’re both obviously non-white in ethnicity, I’d say Indian judging by the names and accents. Bashir himself always struck me as an ethnically Indian raised in the U.K. or, knowing his father, all over the place, from city to city, continent to continent, colony to colony, all over the Alpha quadrant. At the start of the series it seemed like the show runners were doing their best to make Siddig (sp?) look white, and as the show progressed they relaxed their stranglehold a bit and he looked more like his natural complexion. Anyway, this isn’t something isolated only to DS9. Discovery is also guilty of purposefully being vague on ethnicity. Just take a look at Ash Tyler, the whitest name they could think of apparently, played by an actor of color, which they have somehow managed to make look not quite his natural coloring. Personally, I really don’t get why Hollywood has these kinds of hang-ups. They seem to have, mostly, gotten over their fear of black skin on screen, but anyone from the continent of Asia is radioactive. Ok, sorry about the whitewashing rant. I think we’re off topic now.
Weirdly enough, I’m also Vulcan Housewife. Also, RNGesus hates me, like really, REALLY hates me.
This is the problem, everyone in America is so concerned with being PC that they have quotas to fill so that they don't appear "intolerant". White people have gone as far as committing cultural suicide with expressions like "whitewashing" as if their culture is somehow inherently a bad thing. Movies and Television shows now feel the need to fill quotas with a % of black, Asian, White, Hispanic, Female, and gay and shoehorn them in to fill quotas despite it adding nothing to the story. The last episode of Discovery I saw had Hollywood's mandatory gay couple which again is shoehorned into the story to fill quotas. This problem goes beyond entertainment and is actually a part of the hiring process where companies need this many Hispanic and this many x, y, z in order to be progressive. This sort of thing is the downfall of progress because it is a form of prejudice and discrimination dressed up as progress. Any form of racism is still racism. Say a company already has their quota of black employees but needs an Asian employee and the interview for the job is between a black and an Asian. The Asian will be picked simply due to the quota deficit of Asians despite the other person's qualifications. The western world is so concerned with being within their numbers of specific demographics they have forgotten that any decisions based on race or orientation should not be made as it is discrimination. People in the western world try so hard to be color blind that they actually put labels on everyone and file them into categories in order to fill quotas that it makes race, ethnicity, gender, and orientation under a huge spotlight and highlights it. Morgan Freeman was talking to Mike Wallace once and he said that the best way to do away with racism is to stop talking about it. Putting labels on everyone to fill quotas makes the problem 100 times worse than if race were quietly forgotten. He said I am Morgan Freeman and you are Mike Wallace not a black man and a white man but Morgan and Mike. The moment you simply assign names to people rather than a title based on how they look or where they came from then racism stops. Discovery and most other Hollywood works now go out of their way to be "tolerant" by shoehorning in one of every race or orientation (except white straight men because that would be whitewashing) that it takes away from the people and instead puts a title above their head "Token Asian guy", "Token black woman", "Token gay guy", and it detracts from the people and assigns them a label. Would I have had a problem with Picard being black? No if the actor was better than Patrick Stewart. Did I have a problem with Janeway? No she was an excellent Captain. It is not about race or gender it is about performance and innate skill which I do not see in Discovery in any form. Aside from the cast being picked entirely due to their race quotas and being assigned mandatory orientations based again on quotas, I do not see any compelling story or plot which warrants me taking an hour of my time to watch it.
A. Discovery is forcing diversity more than any Star Trek series of the past
B. Discovery is continuing a Hollywood trend of demonizing white males
C. Discovery is thus not a good series because of A and B
A. No but that diversity is being forced simply to fill quotas at the expense of quality. "Michael" is a terrible character because the actress is horrible but she is their Token black female and apparently was good in Walking Dead (I didn't think so).
B. Yes. There is only one the Captain who is shady and villainous. This follows the path of Rogue One.
C. No but A and B don't help. It is also not a good series because the writers don't seem to care one bit about continuity or their original fan base and wouldn't be able to write a compelling interesting story if their life depended on it. The writers have given it a generic sci fi feel with the name Star Trek.
I get your point but I feel like it can't apply to Star Trek. I know it's made by americans and the majority of its viewers are white male and everything... but it's about the future of mankind. The world is united and thus it should be represented on the show. So I don't feel like there is anything shoehorned in the franchise because it's logical that there is people from all over the world. It's the very basic of the show. The fact that some group of people are not represented (or barely) on the show kind of contradict its premise. Where are the billions of asian people? They don't serve Starfleet or maybe Asia has been nuked by the US or Russia (joking)? The same goes for gay people. How come they never was an established gay person on all 5 shows? Not even a one episode character... not even a couple in the background. The show being about humanity and all its differences should not surprise anyone about it being represented on screen and I hope it will continue that way.
I get your point but I feel like it can't apply to Star Trek. I know it's made by americans and the majority of its viewers are white male and everything... but it's about the future of mankind. The world is united and thus it should be represented on the show. So I don't feel like there is anything shoehorned in the franchise because it's logical that there is people from all over the world. It's the very basic of the show. The fact that some group of people are not represented (or barely) on the show kind of contradict its premise. Where are the billions of asian people? They don't serve Starfleet or maybe Asia has been nuked by the US or Russia (joking)? The same goes for gay people. How come they never was an established gay person on all 5 shows? Not even a one episode character... not even a couple in the background. The show being about humanity and all its differences should not surprise anyone about it being represented on screen and I hope it will continue that way.
I agree but as far as a gay character goes we have seen it with Dax being with women. We also saw it with mirror Kira.
I get your point but I feel like it can't apply to Star Trek. I know it's made by americans and the majority of its viewers are white male and everything... but it's about the future of mankind. The world is united and thus it should be represented on the show. So I don't feel like there is anything shoehorned in the franchise because it's logical that there is people from all over the world. It's the very basic of the show. The fact that some group of people are not represented (or barely) on the show kind of contradict its premise. Where are the billions of asian people? They don't serve Starfleet or maybe Asia has been nuked by the US or Russia (joking)? The same goes for gay people. How come they never was an established gay person on all 5 shows? Not even a one episode character... not even a couple in the background. The show being about humanity and all its differences should not surprise anyone about it being represented on screen and I hope it will continue that way.
I agree but as far as a gay character goes we have seen it with Dax being with women. We also saw it with mirror Kira.
Those portrayals are hard to say what they were in terms of definitive sexuality. Dax's is easier to see as bisexual and personally I do see it that way. But Kira's wasn't entirely clear, to me it read as pathological flirty vixen who uses her sexuality as a way to get others to do what she wants, ultimately she feels nothing for those she uses her sexuality to manipulate. Also this reads as if you're saying "we've already had two possible non-hetero portrayals in Trek, we don't need anymore", as if there needs to be some limit to showing these relationships.
But ultimately, no we haven't had any openly non-heterosexual person on Star Trek. And in a future where I imagine humanity will have progressed to the level of escaping much of its bigotry over things like skin colour or whom people fall in love/have sex with, this is still a step we have not seen taken in the ST universe yet.
Did you know Johnathan Frakes, the actor of Riker, wanted the androgynous Soren in the episode "The Outcast" to announce his/her gender as male instead of female? Frakes wanted to test the social waters with an episode that not only showed non-heterosexual relationships, but also to show that Riker as masculine and heterosexual as he always seemed to be, was an open-minded guy who realized the importance of a relationship is that love is love, even if that meant Riker entered into a relationship with someone identifying as male. But the writers did not allow that. So even as it stands now with Culber and Stamets, nothing is defined. They seem to have some sort of relationship but we don't know what they are, e.g. gay, bi, and their relationship is still this secretive thing that other crew members do not know about.
Not every relationship needs to be openly portrayed, sure, but think about how over the many years of Trek how so many hetero relationships were open. Kirk and Riker both were known for their escapades and romantic playboy affairs. Troi's relations with men were no secret about the Enterprise. Paris and Torres from Voyager and also Neelix and Kes were openly accepted couples amongst their crew. Reed often talked about his love of the female form. Kim was shown constantly pining away at some unattainable woman. So as progressive a future would be in Trek set 300 or so years from now, it is honestly high time we see something along those lines for every kind of romantic/sexual relationship. Dax came the closest but even that was so short-lived, it barely registered. Plainly put, lgbt people are still NOT a visible part of the ST universe.
And sorry if it makes you uncomfortable, but as someone who is lgbt, I am not here for your comfort, I am here to see Trek be Trek and its established universe of acceptance and equality actually reflect those values in the relationships it shows of various natures. Personally I don't like Discovery, but if the portrayal is there then it's there and I'm okay with that. If you find that to be shoehorning, then so be it, sometimes you have to open the door manually otherwise it won't open at all. Personally, final note, I'd rather it not be shoehorned, I'd rather it be entirely natural and forthcoming of the writing. But at a time like this, it is difficult to know what is natural and what is shoehorned anytime you have the first step of something coming into view. I'm sure Nichelle Nichols or George Takei being cast on TOS felt shoehorned on part of civil rights for the people of that era too. First steps are always the most controversial.
Admiral of the Haus of GaghGagh, Starbase level 94, we are not accepting members at this time.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
Would I have had a problem with Picard being black? No if the actor was better than Patrick Stewart. Did I have a problem with Janeway? No she was an excellent Captain. It is not about race or gender it is about performance and innate skill which I do not see in Discovery in any form. Aside from the cast being picked entirely due to their race quotas and being assigned mandatory orientations based again on quotas, I do not see any compelling story or plot which warrants me taking an hour of my time to watch it.
The thing is...
You don't have proof of this. You have absolutely zero proof that the cast of Discovery was chosen simply for filling quotas of race or sexuality. No one says you have to watch the show. But what stands is you have no proof of this action of quota-filling at all. If you had proof it'd be a different story, but you don't, so all of what you say instead takes a different attitude when being read.
And that attitude is: that you are personally looking to feel victimized that this series of Trek isn't catering to what you deem appropriate for Trek in terms of the racial or sexual identities of the cast/crew. You can say you would be fine with Picard being black all you want, and in all truth you may be, but when you complain about quotas as if it is a proven fact when it is not, then it undermines your ability to say and have it be perceived by others as objective.
Admiral of the Haus of GaghGagh, Starbase level 94, we are not accepting members at this time.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
Just to clarify real quick, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being white, but I do think that “whitewashing” is a real thing and something that Hollywood and others need to get over. What I mean by that is that when a character is Asian, they should cast an Asian, when the character is white, cast a white person, etc. I might also note that though I’m sure that in some cases cultural appropriation is a real and offensive to some thing, but for the most part, people should try loosening up a bit. If I dress up as a vampire for Halloween, I’m not appropriating Eastern European culture, I’m just dressing up to have fun. The same is basically true of 99.99% of all costumes. Ok, sorry for another off-topic rant.
Weirdly enough, I’m also Vulcan Housewife. Also, RNGesus hates me, like really, REALLY hates me.
Oh, and as for the gay point, Gaghgagh is right. Those portrayals of Ezri, Leeta, and Intendant Kira were all vague and undefined for the most part, plus, all those instances involve what amounts to minor characters. That’s one thing I actually like about Discovery is that we finally have an actual main character who is straight up gay, no ifs, ands, or buts. It’s not vague or implied, it’s out and out stated and it’s a primary character, and if we’re lucky, two primary characters.
Don’t misunderstand me, Discovery is still not good Star Trek in most respects. Just sayin’.
Weirdly enough, I’m also Vulcan Housewife. Also, RNGesus hates me, like really, REALLY hates me.
Oh, and as for the gay point, Gaghgagh is right. Those portrayals of Ezri, Leeta, and Intendant Kira were all vague and undefined for the most part, plus, all those instances involve what amounts to minor characters. That’s one thing I actually like about Discovery is that we finally have an actual main character who is straight up gay, no ifs, ands, or buts. It’s not vague or implied, it’s out and out stated and it’s a primary character, and if we’re lucky, two primary characters.
Don’t misunderstand me, Discovery is still not good Star Trek in most respects. Just sayin’.
Thank you,
Even so though, the Discovery characters aren't out yet. And no one is straight up gay yet because it hasn't been said or really shown. Having just Culber and Stamets talk somewhat romantically and sharing a bathroom sink for brushing teeth, says absolutely nothing. I'm fine if they never label themselves by coming straight out and saying "oh I'm gay", but I seriously hope this relationship gets explored more. That's what good writing would do anyway. And by exploring it more, that's what can define it for us. A one-off moment showing what they did for them in episode 5 is as vague a moment as Dax and Lenara Khan. In all honesty, before that small scene with Culber and Stamets at the bathroom mirror, I had no idea they were a thing at all and thought they actually disliked each other up until that moment. So it was a bit abrupt and needs way more development.
Admiral of the Haus of GaghGagh, Starbase level 94, we are not accepting members at this time.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
Tonight’s episode made it very clear. Plus, it was an actual cool, very Star Trek episode about a time loop. I suggest you watch it Gaghgagh, so you can see what I’m talking about. Btw, has anyone ever figured out why Stamet’s teeth were brown in the teeth brushing scene?
Weirdly enough, I’m also Vulcan Housewife. Also, RNGesus hates me, like really, REALLY hates me.
Tonight’s episode made it very clear. Plus, it was an actual cool, very Star Trek episode about a time loop. I suggest you watch it Gaghgagh, so you can see what I’m talking about. Btw, has anyone ever figured out why Stamet’s teeth were brown in the teeth brushing scene?
I watched it! It is my favourite episode of the series so far because for once this show felt like Trek. Weird Trek, but Trek. And the affirmation of Stamets + Culber, while the scenes were brief, was a nice direction for the show to acknowledge and go in. I will be wanting more though. We still know near nothing about Culber.
And yes! I too was so distracted by Stamets' yellowy teeth two episodes ago, so glad I wasn't the only one. Made me feel like I was being extra-judgmental or something.
Admiral of the Haus of GaghGagh, Starbase level 94, we are not accepting members at this time.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
You guys were impressed by a "Groundhog Day" rip-off? Anyway, I just wanted to say, is it just me, or does Sasha, err, Michael look to be on the verge of tears/crying in EVERY scene she's in, regardless of the 'emotion' she's either supposed to be exhibiting or repressing? Blink woman! Being raised on Vulcan, you'd think a human could hide, ... nvm, STD.
You guys were impressed by a "Groundhog Day" rip-off? Anyway, I just wanted to say, is it just me, or does Sasha, err, Michael look to be on the verge of tears/crying in EVERY scene she's in, regardless of the 'emotion' she's either supposed to be exhibiting or repressing? Blink woman! Being raised on Vulcan, you'd think a human could hide, ... nvm, STD.
I wouldn't say impressed. After all, many Trek series before this used the time-loop formula and did a much better and coherently scientific job of it, e.g. TNG 'Time Squared', 'Cause and Effect', VOY 'Relativity'. I'm just pleased the series did something Trek-reminiscent for once. And more Trek-reminiscent than just an off-hand remark. But more than the episode premise, what impressed me was finally getting some emotion out of these actors. Even if some of these actors show emotion in very confusing ways, it's still something better than near stoic, all-too-serious, joylessness.
Mainly with episodes like these (hopefully there will be more), I'm not going to look a gift targh in the mouth.
Admiral of the Haus of GaghGagh, Starbase level 94, we are not accepting members at this time.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
There have been many Star Trek episodes, whether TNG or Voyager, that utilized the time loop device. I wouldn’t say I’m impressed so much as happy that a Discovery episode is finally doing something that is inherently very Star Trek, and I can only hope that there will be more like that one, though they could have done without the whole dancing/love scene.
Weirdly enough, I’m also Vulcan Housewife. Also, RNGesus hates me, like really, REALLY hates me.
Tonight’s episode made it very clear. Plus, it was an actual cool, very Star Trek episode about a time loop. I suggest you watch it Gaghgagh, so you can see what I’m talking about. Btw, has anyone ever figured out why Stamet’s teeth were brown in the teeth brushing scene?
And yes! I too was so distracted by Stamets' yellowy teeth two episodes ago, so glad I wasn't the only one. Made me feel like I was being extra-judgmental or something.
Definitely not the only one. I even went back to previous episodes to see if it was just the natural color of his teeth or something but as far as I can tell, it’s not. It’s just a weird anomaly I guess.
Weirdly enough, I’m also Vulcan Housewife. Also, RNGesus hates me, like really, REALLY hates me.
This is the problem, everyone in America is so concerned with being PC that they have quotas to fill so that they don't appear "intolerant". White people have gone as far as committing cultural suicide with expressions like "whitewashing" as if their culture is somehow inherently a bad thing. Movies and Television shows now feel the need to fill quotas with a % of black, Asian, White, Hispanic, Female, and gay and shoehorn them in to fill quotas despite it adding nothing to the story. The last episode of Discovery I saw had Hollywood's mandatory gay couple which again is shoehorned into the story to fill quotas. This problem goes beyond entertainment and is actually a part of the hiring process where companies need this many Hispanic and this many x, y, z in order to be progressive. This sort of thing is the downfall of progress because it is a form of prejudice and discrimination dressed up as progress. Any form of racism is still racism. Say a company already has their quota of black employees but needs an Asian employee and the interview for the job is between a black and an Asian. The Asian will be picked simply due to the quota deficit of Asians despite the other person's qualifications. The western world is so concerned with being within their numbers of specific demographics they have forgotten that any decisions based on race or orientation should not be made as it is discrimination. People in the western world try so hard to be color blind that they actually put labels on everyone and file them into categories in order to fill quotas that it makes race, ethnicity, gender, and orientation under a huge spotlight and highlights it. Morgan Freeman was talking to Mike Wallace once and he said that the best way to do away with racism is to stop talking about it. Putting labels on everyone to fill quotas makes the problem 100 times worse than if race were quietly forgotten. He said I am Morgan Freeman and you are Mike Wallace not a black man and a white man but Morgan and Mike. The moment you simply assign names to people rather than a title based on how they look or where they came from then racism stops. Discovery and most other Hollywood works now go out of their way to be "tolerant" by shoehorning in one of every race or orientation (except white straight men because that would be whitewashing) that it takes away from the people and instead puts a title above their head "Token Asian guy", "Token black woman", "Token gay guy", and it detracts from the people and assigns them a label. Would I have had a problem with Picard being black? No if the actor was better than Patrick Stewart. Did I have a problem with Janeway? No she was an excellent Captain. It is not about race or gender it is about performance and innate skill which I do not see in Discovery in any form. Aside from the cast being picked entirely due to their race quotas and being assigned mandatory orientations based again on quotas, I do not see any compelling story or plot which warrants me taking an hour of my time to watch it.
I agree. We are not confined by our labels. Hollywood shoehorning in characters just becaise of labels is just as bad as thinking one race is better than the other.
I usually don't prejuice a new TV show, but when it comes to Star Trek, I'm very picky and careful. While I considered "Enterprise" still to be Star Trek enough, it was clear to me before even watching a single episode of "Discovery" that DSC was not Star Trek anymore. Seeing all these opinions here confirms my darkest fears. I don't even wanna watch more than a few snippets from Youtube (just wanted to check the CGI stuff and a little acting from the protagonists in some moments) ... what I've seen is more than enough, I don't wanna see more of this.
I like Sunny Martin-Green, she's meowsome as an actress! Don't get me wrung here, she's great and all, and I loved her in "The Walking Dead", but it isn't her fault that her character is called "Michael", she didn't choose that name. Saru is probably the most "Trekkish" character of the entire show, but he can't save the whole series.
The last piece of "Star Trek" I have witnessed was "Nemesis" and the 4th season of "Enterprise" (which I think aired both in 2004 if I'm not wrung again). All that came from 2009 and after (AbraCaDabraTrek & DiscoTrek) just won't ever reach even half of what the "real" Star Trek used to be.
"Everything about the Jem'Hadar is lethal!" - Eris (ST-DS9 Episode 2x26 "The Jem'Hadar")
I was as leery as anyone about DSC, and that was only compounded after watching the first several episodes. But slowly, little by little, they have started to work towards winning me over. If they continue down that path (and I believe they will), I think there will be many people eating their words.
Discovery, I posit, is as different from what came before, as Deep Space Nine was to what came before it. But at a certain point, people not only accepted the different style and feel of DS9, but embraced it as something that injected new life into the franchise.
I can't predict how the show will turn out, obviously -- nobody can -- but these are my hopes. And after the latest few episodes, I do have hope... where previously there was admittedly little to be found.
Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing. ~ Data, ST:TNG "Haven"
I was as leery as anyone about DSC, and that was only compounded after watching the first several episodes. But slowly, little by little, they have started to work towards winning me over. If they continue down that path (and I believe they will), I think there will be many people eating their words.
Discovery, I posit, is as different from what came before, as Deep Space Nine was to what came before it. But at a certain point, people not only accepted the different style and feel of DS9, but embraced it as something that injected new life into the franchise.
I can't predict how the show will turn out, obviously -- nobody can -- but these are my hopes. And after the latest few episodes, I do have hope... where previously there was admittedly little to be found.
I think there will be that natural tendency for those who stick around, and there will be small amount who come back on board.
But as with DS9, there will also be a number of folks (as seen by the ratings) will simply move on and not look back, without regret. Hell I'm already there, but being burned by so much bad "Enterprise" I'm listening more to my inner Kenny Rogers.
I also think the analogy to DS9, though tangentially relevant, is a small stretch. DS9, though a change in storytelling format was not a major shift of the Trek universe in general. It was built on what was already there with a greater level of respect to the source material. This one is more like the new BSG vs the old than a new chapter in Trek.
I hope ST Discovery gets cancelled before it damages the entire franchise.
Really? Unlike the last 2 movies. Unlike the last TV series. And even TV series before that "Gillian's Island" I mean Voyager. IMO flawed characters make for more interested characters and Disco is full of them. The first 2 seasons of all TV series were generally the worst except the TOS. If this pattern holds I'm going to be very excited if this is the worst as it gets for Disco.
This is the problem, everyone in America is so concerned with being PC that they have quotas to fill so that they don't appear "intolerant".
Actually the problem with America is that a huge chunk of the population gets butt-hurt when the quotas aren't entirely filled with white straight males.
You know what the problem with complaining about "being PC" is? It still looks an awful lot like bigotry. Sorry, if you can't handle that.
I hope ST Discovery gets cancelled before it damages the entire franchise.
Really? Unlike the last 2 movies. Unlike the last TV series. And even TV series before that "Gillian's Island" I mean Voyager. IMO flawed characters make for more interested characters and Disco is full of them. The first 2 seasons of all TV series were generally the worst except the TOS. If this pattern holds I'm going to be very excited if this is the worst as it gets for Disco.
I appreciate the terms 'morally ambiguous' that I see used often as well as 'flawed'.
It reminds me of the uber-abused term 'anti-hero' which was has become code for wanting to highlight a villain.
There's flawed like Farscapes Crichton or Dargo, or various Ambassadors in B5. There's flawed like Torres, or Ro, or Kira. Or most of the ragtag crew of the Andromeda Ascendant.
Then there's god I'd not only cross the street, I'd friggin leave town if any of these train wrecks came near my house, cause I bet they'd burn it down and kill everyone inside if they could come up with an excuse to do so.
And we call it 'real' because really, no one is ever altruistic, no one is ever 'good', especially when things get rough. Isn't that the whole premise of shows like the Walking Dead? (which Discovery is supposed to be bringing elements in to make it more 'interesting'). But we have examples of heroism even in the real world, in responses to 9/11, to Vegas, to Houston and Puerto Rico, to other incidents some large and some small. Closest I think we've seen in Discovery so far is Stamets in one act at least in the eps that I've seen so far. I just can't make it through the rest for that reason.
This is the problem, everyone in America is so concerned with being PC that they have quotas to fill so that they don't appear "intolerant".
Actually the problem with America is that a huge chunk of the population gets butt-hurt when the quotas aren't entirely filled with white straight males.
You know what the problem with complaining about "being PC" is? It still looks an awful lot like bigotry. Sorry, if you can't handle that.
I find the limiting of both these statements to the US is just that, very limiting. The racist issues are all around as are the PC arguments, as has been demonstrated in upticks of racially based violence over several countries on more than one continent.
I do agree with you on the subject of being PC vs not being PC for the most part. I do think that sometimes when the focus is on the race of the actor, however, it can lead to mis-casting.
In the Marvel Universe there have been several 'race changing' castings (mostly from previously white characters to non-white, though there have been 3 the other direction) and most folks have not had a problem with it as more and more minorities are represented. Mostly this has been due to some real quality folks being brought in, as well as them being true to the spirit of characters and their shared universe. You gotta have a pretty thick sheet on to not think Idris Elba is damn awesome just from a race standpoint. I think a good test for Marvel fans will probably be Black Panther where I believe the only white actors are playing villains. (Its set in Africa for the non Marvel fans) But even in Marvel there is a small minority that does this whole PC argument.
The big problem I have with the rednecks throwing this argument out there is that it makes a conversation about actual flaws in a show or movie impossible to have. Sorry for the politics for a minute, but it's like 2010 where the small minority having an issue with Obama being black made it really hard to be critical of any policy without being called a racist by some groups of people. Some folks racially charge things that really have no place being racially charged, as is evidenced particularly in this thread.
Comments
Oh, snap. What a good argument. You have 100% made me realize my mistake.
Still, based on your analysis, I'd like you to comment on my conclusion. I'd just like you to say whether, based on your analysis, this is correct or not.
"Discovery, in its demographics, is not exceptional, and not worse than some previous Trek."
If what Astro is saying is not your argument, then I suppose I too may have misunderstood your argument. If that is the case, then it would ensure clarity of everyone involved what exactly your argument is, if you re-explained it in different terms.
From where I am standing the argument seems to be
A. Discovery is forcing diversity more than any Star Trek series of the past
B. Discovery is continuing a Hollywood trend of demonizing white males
C. Discovery is thus not a good series because of A and B
Which we (meaning Nad, Astro, and even I to an extent) have showed the demographics of past Star Trek series to show that Discovery is no exception to the diversity of past Trek series and is not more diverse than some of them. While the diversity may be more forced because it was talked about more, which is a point I am considering, just having a conversation about diversity does not mean it is a forced action. The diversity isn't honestly bothersome in the slightest. It is rather 1:1 for the most part between the races in the series.
Then I brought up the fact that I acknowledge the Hollywood trend of white male-dismissal. But that I did not see anything in Discovery which alluded that to be the case in this series. There have been no racial or gendered tensions brought up in this series regarding white people or men as per Hollywood trend.
The moment we get Burnham/Culber/Tyler/Tilly/some other non-white and/or female person in the show bringing out the race or gender card against Lorca/Stamets/some other white guy that their opinions or actions should be dismissed of validity or castigated because Lorca and Stamets are white and/or men, then you'd have a point. But we have not seen anything like that. So the point is moot because the evidence does not exist for this show.
So please, clarify what your argument is.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
I agree but as far as a gay character goes we have seen it with Dax being with women. We also saw it with mirror Kira.
Those portrayals are hard to say what they were in terms of definitive sexuality. Dax's is easier to see as bisexual and personally I do see it that way. But Kira's wasn't entirely clear, to me it read as pathological flirty vixen who uses her sexuality as a way to get others to do what she wants, ultimately she feels nothing for those she uses her sexuality to manipulate. Also this reads as if you're saying "we've already had two possible non-hetero portrayals in Trek, we don't need anymore", as if there needs to be some limit to showing these relationships.
But ultimately, no we haven't had any openly non-heterosexual person on Star Trek. And in a future where I imagine humanity will have progressed to the level of escaping much of its bigotry over things like skin colour or whom people fall in love/have sex with, this is still a step we have not seen taken in the ST universe yet.
Did you know Johnathan Frakes, the actor of Riker, wanted the androgynous Soren in the episode "The Outcast" to announce his/her gender as male instead of female? Frakes wanted to test the social waters with an episode that not only showed non-heterosexual relationships, but also to show that Riker as masculine and heterosexual as he always seemed to be, was an open-minded guy who realized the importance of a relationship is that love is love, even if that meant Riker entered into a relationship with someone identifying as male. But the writers did not allow that. So even as it stands now with Culber and Stamets, nothing is defined. They seem to have some sort of relationship but we don't know what they are, e.g. gay, bi, and their relationship is still this secretive thing that other crew members do not know about.
Not every relationship needs to be openly portrayed, sure, but think about how over the many years of Trek how so many hetero relationships were open. Kirk and Riker both were known for their escapades and romantic playboy affairs. Troi's relations with men were no secret about the Enterprise. Paris and Torres from Voyager and also Neelix and Kes were openly accepted couples amongst their crew. Reed often talked about his love of the female form. Kim was shown constantly pining away at some unattainable woman. So as progressive a future would be in Trek set 300 or so years from now, it is honestly high time we see something along those lines for every kind of romantic/sexual relationship. Dax came the closest but even that was so short-lived, it barely registered. Plainly put, lgbt people are still NOT a visible part of the ST universe.
And sorry if it makes you uncomfortable, but as someone who is lgbt, I am not here for your comfort, I am here to see Trek be Trek and its established universe of acceptance and equality actually reflect those values in the relationships it shows of various natures. Personally I don't like Discovery, but if the portrayal is there then it's there and I'm okay with that. If you find that to be shoehorning, then so be it, sometimes you have to open the door manually otherwise it won't open at all. Personally, final note, I'd rather it not be shoehorned, I'd rather it be entirely natural and forthcoming of the writing. But at a time like this, it is difficult to know what is natural and what is shoehorned anytime you have the first step of something coming into view. I'm sure Nichelle Nichols or George Takei being cast on TOS felt shoehorned on part of civil rights for the people of that era too. First steps are always the most controversial.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
The thing is...
You don't have proof of this. You have absolutely zero proof that the cast of Discovery was chosen simply for filling quotas of race or sexuality. No one says you have to watch the show. But what stands is you have no proof of this action of quota-filling at all. If you had proof it'd be a different story, but you don't, so all of what you say instead takes a different attitude when being read.
And that attitude is: that you are personally looking to feel victimized that this series of Trek isn't catering to what you deem appropriate for Trek in terms of the racial or sexual identities of the cast/crew. You can say you would be fine with Picard being black all you want, and in all truth you may be, but when you complain about quotas as if it is a proven fact when it is not, then it undermines your ability to say and have it be perceived by others as objective.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
Don’t misunderstand me, Discovery is still not good Star Trek in most respects. Just sayin’.
Thank you,
Even so though, the Discovery characters aren't out yet. And no one is straight up gay yet because it hasn't been said or really shown. Having just Culber and Stamets talk somewhat romantically and sharing a bathroom sink for brushing teeth, says absolutely nothing. I'm fine if they never label themselves by coming straight out and saying "oh I'm gay", but I seriously hope this relationship gets explored more. That's what good writing would do anyway. And by exploring it more, that's what can define it for us. A one-off moment showing what they did for them in episode 5 is as vague a moment as Dax and Lenara Khan. In all honesty, before that small scene with Culber and Stamets at the bathroom mirror, I had no idea they were a thing at all and thought they actually disliked each other up until that moment. So it was a bit abrupt and needs way more development.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
I watched it! It is my favourite episode of the series so far because for once this show felt like Trek. Weird Trek, but Trek. And the affirmation of Stamets + Culber, while the scenes were brief, was a nice direction for the show to acknowledge and go in. I will be wanting more though. We still know near nothing about Culber.
And yes! I too was so distracted by Stamets' yellowy teeth two episodes ago, so glad I wasn't the only one. Made me feel like I was being extra-judgmental or something.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
I wouldn't say impressed. After all, many Trek series before this used the time-loop formula and did a much better and coherently scientific job of it, e.g. TNG 'Time Squared', 'Cause and Effect', VOY 'Relativity'. I'm just pleased the series did something Trek-reminiscent for once. And more Trek-reminiscent than just an off-hand remark. But more than the episode premise, what impressed me was finally getting some emotion out of these actors. Even if some of these actors show emotion in very confusing ways, it's still something better than near stoic, all-too-serious, joylessness.
Mainly with episodes like these (hopefully there will be more), I'm not going to look a gift targh in the mouth.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
Definitely not the only one. I even went back to previous episodes to see if it was just the natural color of his teeth or something but as far as I can tell, it’s not. It’s just a weird anomaly I guess.
tl;dr: "Klingons" - period.
I rest my case.
I agree. We are not confined by our labels. Hollywood shoehorning in characters just becaise of labels is just as bad as thinking one race is better than the other.
I like Sunny Martin-Green, she's meowsome as an actress! Don't get me wrung here, she's great and all, and I loved her in "The Walking Dead", but it isn't her fault that her character is called "Michael", she didn't choose that name. Saru is probably the most "Trekkish" character of the entire show, but he can't save the whole series.
The last piece of "Star Trek" I have witnessed was "Nemesis" and the 4th season of "Enterprise" (which I think aired both in 2004 if I'm not wrung again). All that came from 2009 and after (AbraCaDabraTrek & DiscoTrek) just won't ever reach even half of what the "real" Star Trek used to be.
Discovery, I posit, is as different from what came before, as Deep Space Nine was to what came before it. But at a certain point, people not only accepted the different style and feel of DS9, but embraced it as something that injected new life into the franchise.
I can't predict how the show will turn out, obviously -- nobody can -- but these are my hopes. And after the latest few episodes, I do have hope... where previously there was admittedly little to be found.
Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing.
~ Data, ST:TNG "Haven"
I think there will be that natural tendency for those who stick around, and there will be small amount who come back on board.
But as with DS9, there will also be a number of folks (as seen by the ratings) will simply move on and not look back, without regret. Hell I'm already there, but being burned by so much bad "Enterprise" I'm listening more to my inner Kenny Rogers.
I also think the analogy to DS9, though tangentially relevant, is a small stretch. DS9, though a change in storytelling format was not a major shift of the Trek universe in general. It was built on what was already there with a greater level of respect to the source material. This one is more like the new BSG vs the old than a new chapter in Trek.
Actually the problem with America is that a huge chunk of the population gets butt-hurt when the quotas aren't entirely filled with white straight males.
You know what the problem with complaining about "being PC" is? It still looks an awful lot like bigotry. Sorry, if you can't handle that.
I appreciate the terms 'morally ambiguous' that I see used often as well as 'flawed'.
It reminds me of the uber-abused term 'anti-hero' which was has become code for wanting to highlight a villain.
There's flawed like Farscapes Crichton or Dargo, or various Ambassadors in B5. There's flawed like Torres, or Ro, or Kira. Or most of the ragtag crew of the Andromeda Ascendant.
Then there's god I'd not only cross the street, I'd friggin leave town if any of these train wrecks came near my house, cause I bet they'd burn it down and kill everyone inside if they could come up with an excuse to do so.
And we call it 'real' because really, no one is ever altruistic, no one is ever 'good', especially when things get rough. Isn't that the whole premise of shows like the Walking Dead? (which Discovery is supposed to be bringing elements in to make it more 'interesting'). But we have examples of heroism even in the real world, in responses to 9/11, to Vegas, to Houston and Puerto Rico, to other incidents some large and some small. Closest I think we've seen in Discovery so far is Stamets in one act at least in the eps that I've seen so far. I just can't make it through the rest for that reason.
I find the limiting of both these statements to the US is just that, very limiting. The racist issues are all around as are the PC arguments, as has been demonstrated in upticks of racially based violence over several countries on more than one continent.
I do agree with you on the subject of being PC vs not being PC for the most part. I do think that sometimes when the focus is on the race of the actor, however, it can lead to mis-casting.
In the Marvel Universe there have been several 'race changing' castings (mostly from previously white characters to non-white, though there have been 3 the other direction) and most folks have not had a problem with it as more and more minorities are represented. Mostly this has been due to some real quality folks being brought in, as well as them being true to the spirit of characters and their shared universe. You gotta have a pretty thick sheet on to not think Idris Elba is damn awesome just from a race standpoint. I think a good test for Marvel fans will probably be Black Panther where I believe the only white actors are playing villains. (Its set in Africa for the non Marvel fans) But even in Marvel there is a small minority that does this whole PC argument.
The big problem I have with the rednecks throwing this argument out there is that it makes a conversation about actual flaws in a show or movie impossible to have. Sorry for the politics for a minute, but it's like 2010 where the small minority having an issue with Obama being black made it really hard to be critical of any policy without being called a racist by some groups of people. Some folks racially charge things that really have no place being racially charged, as is evidenced particularly in this thread.