• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Integral

  • Rank
    Andorian Kumari-Class
  • Birthday 02/15/1992

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    The great gig in the sky
  • Marital Status
  • Favorite Trek Movie
    First Contact
  • Favorite Trek Captain
    Jean-Luc Picard
  • Favorite Trek Series
    Deep Space Nine
  • Interests
    Skateboarding, writing, Star Trek, sudoku, maths

Contact Methods

  • Facebook
    Miles Saunders-Priem
  1. For me the bottom line is dialogue and story. If Discovery can come anywhere close to TNG and DS9 then that will be good. But the new look for the Klingons just annoyed me, the Klingons in JJ Trek looked awful. I'm not sure what the viewing options are for the UK or when UK Trekkies can see Discovery, but I will be tuning in to see the pilot and the first series. Personally don't be surprised if Discovery does turn out to be a trainwreck, the first season of TNG and large parts of DS9's 1st season were train wrecks. The second season of both of those shows alternated between greatness and a trainwreck, finally when it came to the 3rd season the show found its groove. If Discovery makes it to the 3rd season then it can only be great- every series post-TOS has proved this to be true. So it should hold for Discovery. In fact I would be more worried if Discovery was very good in the first season because things only go downhill: look at TOS and Voyager. With TOS it started dipping downwards from season 2 and with Voyager it got stuck in a rut and was often very cautious with its story-telling; unlike DS9 which went places.
  2. DS9-approach or go home. DS9 was great because of its deconstruction approach. It explained a bit more about how the Federation worked, what were the limits of the Federation utopia and what it actually took to defend utopia. Discovery needs to continue on with this deconstruction approach by trying to answer the following questions: is the Federation an ideal Communist state or is it something else? Is there a place in the Federation for SJWs, 3rd wave feminism and PC culture sweeping through the West today? Where does religion fit in to all of this- where are the Christians and Muslims? How does the Federation economy work with no money and/or use of energy credits? Does the Federation have vassal states? Does the Federation have member worlds which are troubled: politically, militarily, culturally? If a Federation member's world is undergoing problems does the Federation eventually kick out that member? These are questions which can form the backbone for dozens of episodes. Heck even just having a religious character, one who is either Christian or Muslim, could have all kinds of story possibilities and it would be a VERY bold thing to say: in the 23rd century religions get along on Earth, there are no more religious wars and sectarian disputes. But why? Perhaps even juxtapose all of this growing waves of secularism and spiritualism. I feel Star Trek was at its best when either exploring morality or deconstructing morality/politics/ideologies/philosophies. I also feel the Star Trek universe and the Federation badly needs to be deconstructed to provide new stories in Star Trek.
  3. So a bit of a who's who, though I'm not sure where in the article it mentions the four year Klingon War. As for T'Kuvma, he looks very much like Michael Dorn...
  4. That's the role I most remember from Carrie Fisher, she was brilliant in The Blue Brothers. RIP.
  5. I'm leaning towards that being painkiller issues in regards to his back. ^ Didn't even think of that; I certainly had my moments when I was on heavy prescription meds 20 years ago... May have been a factor in his DUI as well. Not trying to justify it, but perhaps he was self-medicating. If Avery Brooks is self-medicating on painkillers, and perhaps prescription drugs, then he needs to be careful. Heath Ledger died from accidental overdose, MJ and Prince died from painkiller overdoses too.
  6. Bummer! I know she is very famous for Star Wars, but she was brilliant in the Blue Brothers as the jilted bride seeking revenge and also her role in When Harry Met Sally. Hope she recovers soon because it's never good having heart attacks at that age...
  7. I think Nicholas Meyer is being a bit harsh about the naivete part. Yes ST 6 definitely had that Cold War coming to an end feel to it- this gave the movie so much power and resonance to it. But the Federation and Klingons didn't have superweapons which could wipe out the other side within a day. Plus Russia did want to join NATO some years after the Cold War ended but somehow its requests were ignored. Of course ST 6 didn't show the other side of the Cold War tactics: economic sanctions, market manipulation, ideological warfare (spreading communism or capitalism through dissident elements in the population) and use of proxies. It also didn't explore other elements causing conflict and trouble: Wahabbism, oligarchy, plutocracy, cultural Marxism... A TV/Film franchise can only show so much, this is a complicated world. Today though, especially in the last couple of years, it seems the US, NATO and Middle-Eastern countries just want to put Russia in a vice grip: missile shields, deploying tank squadrons and aircraft in countries which have recently joined NATO and of course manipulating The real irony is that while Russia moves further away from Communism, Marxism and other extreme left-wing politics, the West seems to be moving towards more extreme forms of left-wing politics: identity politics, hate crime, cultural Marxism... Some of the responses from prominent politicians in the West about Fidel Castro's passing almost smack of apologist talk: Justin Trudeau, the Canadian PM, and Jeremy Corbyn the leader of the Labour Party in the UK. I'm thinking there's definitely a blind spot towards the worst elements of Communism and left-wing authoritarian regimes. So that along with many other things would explain the "naivete". Cold War wasn't the only major source of conflict. Just look at ISIS and the Muslim World War raging right now.
  8. Never heard of the other two actors, just Yeoh, and I am aware that Yeoh will be playing the captain of the USS Shenzhou. If Discovery plays it cards well like DS9 did with characters then I would rather see main characters in fewer episodes if they are more interesting than in more episodes where they get forced in to fit the plot; Voyager suffered badly from this.
  9. Casting Michelle Yeoh as the captain is an inspired choice. Putting it out there but I think she will be the female equivalent of Captain Picard. I say this based on the roles Yeoh has taken on and her acting style. First of all this lady can ACT! She has played characters who project a commanding presence, but they are often soft-spoken, subtle in their mannerisms and yet deep-down very driven. Watch Croaching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or Memoirs of a Geisha- Yeoh owns those roles. Yeoh is going to play it very differently from Kate Mulgrew. While Mulgrew added that brashness and can-do attitude with Janeway, Yeoh is probably going to play it more calculating and thoughtful, kind of like No 1 in TOS. Which is why I say Captain Georgiou (is that pronounced George - O ?) is going to captain in a style very similar to Captain Picard; the philosophical, high-principled thinker. Once more casting Michelle Yeoh was an inspired choice and put a smile to my face when I read the news yesterday.
  10. Yeah what Sisko said was a little out of place in the world of Star Trek, but he had a point about the historical context. Kassidy had an also equally valid counterpoint to. How Star Trek: Beyond handled Sulu's character is something which ST: Discovery should emulate.
  11. Anyway, back to the Host episode. I just think the reason why Crusher couldn't continue the relationship was due to the sudden change and IMO because the new host was not a man. That's how I read it. Finally, I'm not equating homosexuality to paedophilia and incest.
  12. Star Trek has hinted at lesbianism, homosexuality, bisexuality, sexual fluidity and other stuff but never had a character openly in a LGBT category. Now that the ST: Discovery has a gay character I think the best thing to is not go advertise everywhere in a caricature-like way. Play it, pardon the pun, straight. Having a character define himself/herself by their sexuality would be anathema to Star Trek. I can't think of any moment in Star Trek where a main character defines themselves by the colour of their skin, their ethnicity upon their own planet or by their sexuality. TOS never did that, it did the best thing possible: being Asian, or black, or Russian or a woman was not a person's defining characteristic. It was who they were as a person that mattered, not some racial or gender characteristic. Though I think there is some misunderstanding about the openness of the Star Trek universe. I'm thinking about Beverly Crusher in the ending of the TNG episode, the Host. Where she says she cannot love the new host, the thing is it is her choice to be heterosexual and that is what she is comfortable with- hence her comment. 24th century Federation can't be that open otherwise there would be all kinds of relationships: paedophilia, polygamy, incest and so forth. There is unprecedented freedom and a remarkable amount of tolerance in the Federation, but it is bound to morality and justice. Otherwise completely open relationships of any kind which are never frowned upon would lead to an amoral society. There are no restrictions on sex between two, or more, consenting adults. But the general preference is the typical family unit, heteronormativity appears to be the standard practice for 99% of members of all species who have the nuclear family structure. Unless you are Denobulan of course! About 0.5% of humanity is in the LGBT category and I personally believe that percentage will not change that much, I think it comes down to sexual preference and you just know what turns you on and no is going to tell you otherwise. I don't like the arguments of "you don't know what you are missing" or "it's bigoted to not explore and try new things". Imagine saying to a gay person- why not have a heterosexual relationship? They would be pretty offended because they choose to have same-sex relationships, that's the only way they can feel love and sexual pleasure. So why say to a straight person- why not have a homosexual relationship? Why is it is frowned upon that a straight person only wants to seek heterosexual relationships? Just because a person has a set preference does not make them bigoted.
  13. The details sound interesting, I just hope they don't botch the gay character, the best way of going about it is to not make a thing of it because in the Federation it would not be a thing. Then of course have episodes where's there bigoted societies and then boo-yah bring out the social commentary.
  14. Thanks for the comment. It's taking a while to work on the next chapter because I have been busy with work and other hobbies, however I will get around to finishing it off during this bank holiday weekend. I'm glad you found Kira's and Ezri's stories convincing, it took a lot of time working out a backstory!
  15. You went there... I have gone where no man has gone before!