doctor_odd

Senior Member
  • Content count

    2,703
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About doctor_odd

  • Rank
    Daughter of House Tully

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Canada
  • Marital Status
    Single
  • Favorite Trek Movie
    The Undiscovered Country
  • Favorite Trek Captain
    Benjamin Sisko
  • Favorite Trek Series
    Deep Space Nine
  • Interests
    Star Trek, Twin Peaks, Firefly, The X-Files, A Song of Ice and Fire, Babylon 5, and more that I am forgetting.

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0
  • Website URL
    http://

Recent Profile Visitors

14,082 profile views
  1. Absolutely. His work on First Contact was stunning, considering it was his first time directing a major motion picture.
  2. I love Star Trek enough to pay for it. I'm actually so excited right now. I grew up watching Voyager and Deep Space Nine, and then Enterprise after that. Star Trek is such an important part of my life, I would pay $40 a month for it, easy. Just knowing that I'm going to be getting to know a new crew and a new ship (and maybe crew(s) and ship(s)!) is bringing joy to my life.
  3. Personally, what I'm most excited about is the USS Discovery being a "rank" on this message board. https://twitter.com/actordougjones/status/823958342389403648 Doug Jones confirms what Stella posted!
  4. A couple random thoughts since it's been a few weeks since I last posted. I see around the internet a lot of the "Discovery is going to fail" sentiment. It's strange to me, almost seems like people want it to fail. I see so much hatred of the prequel concept and I'm so fed up with it. A prequel doesn't limit the things that can happen. I mean, yes, the federation can't be annihilated, and Sarek can't die, but the thing about space is that it is gigantic. Do we really think that in the less than a thousand hours in this universe we've been exposed to, every major event has been mentioned? I only just learned about Hadrian's Wall, and I've lived a lot longer than a thousand hours. I also speak French, and yet for most of my life it never even crosses my mind. What I'm getting at is that we've only seen a tiny window into this vast world. The idea that a prequel is more limited in scope is just preposterous. The only limit is the writers' imagination. And besides, there's nothing wrong with a show that strays from major galaxy-shaping events. If the show ends up being a reimagining, that's fine too. I'm a huge fan of Leonard Cohen and yet I prefer some covers of Hallelujah to the original. On the whole I prefer the Kelvin movies to 50% of the Prime Timeline movies, maybe more. Let's judge Discovery not by our expectations, but by its own merits. So far, I'm excited by what I see. The actors are all amazing, the ship already looks iconic to me, and I have tremendous faith in the writing staff. I apologize if any of this has been said before. I've been away from the thread for a while and there's a lot of catching up to do. Most of my arguments are directed at fans on reddit.
  5. The first episode of TNG had McCoy. The first episode of DS9 had Picard (and, well, O'Brien for that matter). The first episode of VOY had Quark. The first episode of ENT had Cochran. I think a more fitting guest star to "send off" the series would be a brief cameo by T'Pol.
  6. My apologies! Being in the gay community myself, I have trans friends and I'm always very careful to use the right terms if I can. When I put "normal female of sorts" it was more me struggling to remember what the alien really was as its been YEARS since I've seen it, hehe. I guess my primary point was they were going to make that episode Star Trek's first "gay situation" but decided against it. No worries! Sorry if I was too preachy. I had just woken up when I wrote that.
  7. I would set it that way as well. Every once in a while, a random person will notice "oh, you're left handed!" It never goes beyond that (how could it?), but I'm always surprised that people would take the time to comment on such a banal habit. That's clearly the way Star Trek, of all franchises, should have went with homosexuality a long time ago. It's my understanding that the TNG episode where Riker falls for the "transgender" alien "female" was going to be the moment where Star Trek finally tackled homosexuality, but they decided it was too risky ( I.e., they got cold feet) and they went ahead and just made her a normal female of sorts. PSA time! The Outcast didn't really explore homosexuality at all, nor would it have if she was presented as less female-passing. Soren identified as a woman, and Riker (presumably) identified as a man. So any semblance of a relationship was heterosexual, until of course she was "cured" of her gender identity. Describing her as she appeared as a "normal female of sorts". I mean, isn't that a little insensitive? What constitutes a "normal female" is entirely cultural, and any other definition seems as archaic as The Outcast. I consider myself to be a "normal female" (well, as normal as a trekkie can be) and I am a trans woman. I understand that there are definitions of "female" that do NOT include trans women, but any such definition is sorely lacking in the year 2016*. A more sensitive/precise term for what people mean when they say "female" and are excluding trans women might be "cisgendered women" or "AFAB (assigned female at birth) women". *And might I remind those who would say that the popular definition of female is a scientific one, and therefore infallible: the beauty of science (and of language!) is that it changes and adapts to our present understanding of the word. To hold up one scientific world view as "god's will" and/or "objective" is antithetical to the scientific process, and is really just another form of dogmatic fundamentalism.
  8. Oh, yay! A fellow Victorian! Yeah, I've eaten in the ferry buffet too many times to count. It's a way better deal than the cafeteria if you go for the "light" buffet. Once you get a coffee/tea, a bowl of soup, a salad, and a slice of cheesecake at the cafeteria you've already spent more money than you would for the buffet, and you don't get to go back for more helpings! I fill up on the ferry, it always helps to prep me for the long bus ride from Tsawassen to downtown Vancouver. I love Vancouver; I go there whenever I can afford the time off to do some real shopping and take in the sights. Vic is still a substantial city, but it isn't tall or futuristic like Van. When I emerge from the Vancouver-City Centre skytrain station I always feel like I'm in Blade Runner. Those vests look heavy and warm. I'd hate to have to wear those in the summer time! I guess I'm a true northerner; even BC is too warm for me in the summer.
  9. Welcome aboard! I hope you enjoy your stay! This is a great place for Star Trek discussions, and discussions of all sorts. I too loved The Thaw. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4SNl4sQYOg Harry Kim episodes are so rare!
  10. Kinda nervous posting this here, but now that I've seen all of you I think it's only fair! I was trying to take a photo of the Georgia Strait from the BC Ferries, but my front-facing camera was on. I liked how I looked for once so I snapped the photo!
  11. Brian Fuller's tweet of the Captain's Chair gives me hope that the interior deisgn of the bridge will be an amazing balance between futuristic and retro.
  12. First, I want to say I love the idea of including gay or other LGBT characters. But I have a concern ... I was never very fond of sexuality/romance on Star Trek, in the straight cases. Star Trek hardly ever did romance well, IMO. On DS9, it kind of worked most of the time, but in the other shows, I felt romance was usually a bit stiff, unrelatable or even awkward. So I'd rather see romance not being in the center of Star Trek in general, no matter if gay or straight. It should be Star Trek, not Love Boat. But that said? Sure, make some characters gay, as long as I don't have to learn any more about their love life, than about the love life of any other character. But then, maybe Fuller's new approach is focused on deeper character portrayal, so it could work. I absolutely agree that the romances we've seen so far for the most part have been shallow. I think, though, that if we want to have realistic people, there need to be realistic romances. That's just a part of the human experience! But that being said, yes, Star Trek should concentrate on more than just the romances.
  13. Cassidy Yates and Ben Sisko. Crusher and Picard. McCoy and Nancy Crater. Paris and Torres. Bashir and Dax. Worf and Dax. T'Pol and Trip. Troi and Riker. and MANY more. Oh, and Kes and Neelix. *shudder* These are just a few of the straight relationships that have appeared in Prime Star Trek. "Sexuality", therefore, has been a part of Star Trek for 50 years. At least, heterosexuality. Having an openly gay character is as simple as having an openly straight character. Maybe some of them were bisexual, pansexual or whathaveyou, but it was never mentioned on screen, and so cannot be considered canon. If having an openly homosexual character is part of a "checklist", then please, tell me why that "checklist" is so bad. Seems like a necessary "checklist" to me, if THIS is the level of discourse on Star Trek sites (seriously, fellow LGBT people, avoid the star trek subreddit for right now). Why, I ask, WHY, is announcing a gay character tantamount to that character being a "token gay character"? Have you seriously done your research on Fuller and determined that, "yeah, he's gay so his gay character is going to be a stereotype"? The controversy shouldn't be this. It's really really dark that it is.
  14. With any luck, DSC will be the first in a whole new generation of series! :D
  15. I'm actually in favour of it for a number of reasons. The TOS era isn't as "fleshed out" as what comes before and after it. We only had 3 years (excluding the animated series even though I love it) to get to know the era, the characters, and the federation in general. This will be our first chance to see this part of history with a modern budget. As amazingly well as the original series has held up over the last 50 years, it is still so dated that for many it isn't easy to be immersed. All due respect to TOS, of course, for it started it all, but imagine TOS with TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT's attention to detail regarding continuity, technical concepts, and character development. Sure, Kirk and Spock's friendship certainly developed over time, but it wasn't really until TMP and onward that they became relatable people (at least to my millennial mindset). Beyond TNG there was so much potential, and DS9 and VOY did a remarkable job in my opinion in fulfilling that potential, each show taking certain aspects of TNG and putting their own unique spin on them. Beyond VOY, well... those damn grey uniforms are just so dark, compared to the vibrant TOS, TNG and early DS9 uniforms. Then, what do we get after the grey ones? Well, Endgame and The Visitor, while both technically took place in alternate futures, presented these ugly things: I apologize if you like them, but they're just so... I'm not sure how to put it. I want to say ugly but I don't think that captures how I feel about them. I guess you could say I just don't resonate with them. Our other options too are grim, from the Babylon 5 special, to the lazy communicator/rank combo, to, well, whatever the hell Daniels wore: The truth is, the post-VOY and Nemesis Trek universe is actually pretty fleshed out. Even if most of what we see can be explained away by time paradoxes and alternate realities, it seems that in every possible future we've seen, the Federation becomes massively overpowered, with ships that retain the same basic interface that has been present for hundreds of years. Early TNG failed in a lot of ways, but I don't consider it a failure. It presented a bright future with a bold new look. The ENT-D was not streamlined; it had no need of feigning aerodynamics. It was secure in what it was. The uniforms were form-fitting and loud, showcasing Roddenberry's ideal of a future where the human body was no longer seen as an object of shame. Men wore skirts, because the concept of gendered clothing had obviously worn off, as it should. Then, the skirts disappeared (at least the men's), and the uniforms became duller. This, to me, is the beginning of the downfall of Star Trek uniform design. I know there were real-world reasons why this was a necessity (not least of all the physical health of the actors), but something was lost of the texture of Star Trek. I like the idea of the DS9 jumpsuits, but the First Contact uniforms were so drab. This worked with the theme of the film, but not with the themes of Star Trek. I'm fixating on the uniforms, but I feel the biggest reason why going "forward" isn't really the best idea is that, unless they somehow handicap the federation, and ignore Janeway's ridiculously advanced future technology, the stakes need to continually be raised. We'd need new enemies that were even bigger and even badder than the Borg, the Xindi, and the Dominion! Sequel escalation, really, and I don't find that sort of thing very compelling. Going back (or forward, from the NX-01's perspective), we have plenty of story to tell. Janeway didn't often mention the ENT-D, so why should we expect Kirk to have mentioned the DSC? Tangentially, I love the idea of a ship that isn't a "legend" in the way the Enterprise or Voyager was. What is more fascinating to me than the crazy space anomalies and what have you, are the mundanities of everyday starfleet life. So rare are our extended glimpses into the lower decks, that there is actually an episode called Lower Decks.