Frontier

Lots of New Information on Discovery

Recommended Posts

As for the casting, yeah I expected political correctness to trump over who is objectively the best actor for a role. That's just par for the course in TV land now and I expect it. No use complaining about it, it's not worth the headache.

No use, and yet......... 

Really, this is only one step removed from, "It doesn't matter how good she was, she was dating the producer."

Edited by prometheus59650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a sharp eye, you'll see that Archer died one day after the Enterprise 1701 launched in 2245.  You can find it in In The Mirror Darkly.  I tried to see if the picture that said it was online, and it was, but it's out of focus.

But will they really make Trek beholden to a piece of canon that was nothing more than a glimpse on a small screen for half a second? To me, it's one of those things they can "ignore" to be honest. Despite the rough bumps that ENT had, I think it deserves a nice bit of closure - even if it's just through an elderly Archer doing a cameo.

As for the lead, I love how some have commented that we'd been there and done that with a black or female one. I guess we've also been quite there with a white dude! So I'll say this: At the very least,

I am all for having a much more diverse cast and a non-white lead. My only quibble with it (cause it's not even a really big deal) is that America has this dichotomy that there exists only two groups - white people and black people. I fully agree that just because we had Sisko does not mean there can never be another black captain. That would be absurd. Especially after 4 white captains. But it would be nice to have a lead that did not fall into that white/black divide. That is why I was so surprised about Edward James Olmos being the "lead" or a primary character in an ensemble cast for BSG. Latinos are rarely depicted in Trek, minus "ensign Rodriguez" the red shirt. I think Torres was supposed to be Latina (her human half anyways) but I don't remember them directly mentioning that.

I think for a female captain- why not a Muslim? Perhaps Iraqi or Afghani considering the current political climate. Just like Chekov, a Russian, was made a good guy during the Cold War era. Why not a Muslim? Or maybe the lead character (the lieutenant) could be that?

South Asian actors were robbed at the chance of playing Khan - something that many understandably lamented. Middle Eastern people are constantly forced to play terrorists. And Asians (both East and South) are forced to play stereotypical, badly accented, nerd roles.

Sci-fi gives them the opportunity to play a hero that isn't leaning on their race, but as an individual.

There should be room for them as leads as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think for a female captain- why not a Muslim? Perhaps Iraqi or Afghani considering the current political climate. Just like Chekov, a Russian, was made a good guy during the Cold War era. Why not a Muslim? Or maybe the lead character (the lieutenant) could be that?

Muslim is a religion of choice, not a race... and when you consider how secular the 23rd century will likely be, I would say having a captain of Middle Eastern descent, like Captain Robau in Star Trek (2009) is how it would likely go.

-- Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think for a female captain- why not a Muslim? Perhaps Iraqi or Afghani considering the current political climate. Just like Chekov, a Russian, was made a good guy during the Cold War era. Why not a Muslim? Or maybe the lead character (the lieutenant) could be that?

Muslim is a religion of choice, not a race... and when you consider how secular the 23rd century will likely be, I would say having a captain of Middle Eastern descent, like Captain Robau in Star Trek (2009) is how it would likely go.

-- Steve

I understand it is a religion... That is why I specifically said Iraqi or Afghani.

And Robau, while an interesting character for the brief time he was there, was not a lead. I'm talking about a fully fleshed character. Not someone that pops up for 5 minutes.

Edited by The Founder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a sharp eye, you'll see that Archer died one day after the Enterprise 1701 launched in 2245.  You can find it in In The Mirror Darkly.  I tried to see if the picture that said it was online, and it was, but it's out of focus.

But will they really make Trek beholden to a piece of canon that was nothing more than a glimpse on a small screen for half a second? To me, it's one of those things they can "ignore" to be honest. Despite the rough bumps that ENT had, I think it deserves a nice bit of closure - even if it's just through an elderly Archer doing a cameo.

As for the lead, I love how some have commented that we'd been there and done that with a black or female one. I guess we've also been quite there with a white dude! So I'll say this: At the very least,

I am all for having a much more diverse cast and a non-white lead. My only quibble with it (cause it's not even a really big deal) is that America has this dichotomy that there exists only two groups - white people and black people. I fully agree that just because we had Sisko does not mean there can never be another black captain. That would be absurd. Especially after 4 white captains. But it would be nice to have a lead that did not fall into that white/black divide. That is why I was so surprised about Edward James Olmos being the "lead" or a primary character in an ensemble cast for BSG. Latinos are rarely depicted in Trek, minus "ensign Rodriguez" the red shirt. I think Torres was supposed to be Latina (her human half anyways) but I don't remember them directly mentioning that.

I think for a female captain- why not a Muslim? Perhaps Iraqi or Afghani considering the current political climate. Just like Chekov, a Russian, was made a good guy during the Cold War era. Why not a Muslim? Or maybe the lead character (the lieutenant) could be that?

South Asian actors were robbed at the chance of playing Khan - something that many understandably lamented. Middle Eastern people are constantly forced to play terrorists. And Asians (both East and South) are forced to play stereotypical, badly accented, nerd roles.

Sci-fi gives them the opportunity to play a hero that isn't leaning on their race, but as an individual.

There should be room for them as leads as well.

^
Very much this.

And just because they've only mentioned a couple of character's traits so far doesn't mean there won't be further diversity in the crew.   And yes, why NOT a Muslim crew member?  We saw an Indian crew member in "That Which Survives" (Rhada, who wore a traditional Hindu "Bindi" on her forehead).   Maybe another someone from that hugely underrepresented segment of Earth's population (Khan Noonian Singh doesn't really count... hell, he was never even played by an Indian actor!).

Anyway, here's hoping.  Again, as scenario noted above:  diversity is in ST's very DNA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

As for the casting, yeah I expected political correctness to trump over who is objectively the best actor for a role.

Are you serious with that statement? You do realize Bryan Fuller never said "Oh, and we're definitely having a gay actor." right? There will be a character who is, and he or she will probably be played by a straight actor or actress too. I mean c'mon....

-- Steve

I don't understand how someone could object to inclusive casting and still call themselves a ST fan... ST has been all ABOUT inclusive casting for 50 freaking YEARS. 

Hear, hear!

And a-****-men!

 

In an ideal world that already has achieved true "colorblind" (or "genderblind") equality, deliberately inclusive casting wouldn't be necessary -- a black viewer would identify with a white character just as much as with a black character. And vice versa. But we're not there yet. Which is why the casting of certain ethnicities, as a deliberate statement, has a purpose.

However, for me personally, I don't mind either way, as long as I find a character interesting. I easily identify with or relate to Sisko or Geordi, even though I'm not black. It doesn't make a difference for me. So I prefer when the ethnic origin of a character isn't emphasized too much -- as it wouldn't be in a future society where it really doesn't matter anymore. Think of Geordi ... I don't think his skin color was ever made a topic on the show, not even in a remote allusion. I liked that. I literally have to make a conscious effort of remembering who on TNG had which skin color, because it's just no relevant category in my mind. When a show manages to achieve that, I consider that a success! :)

But then, the show is about a colorblind society, but for a not-yet colorblind audience. So of course it has to make statements.

I'm really fine with that, as long as it enables me to enjoy the colorblind future. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the casting, yeah I expected political correctness to trump over who is objectively the best actor for a role.

Are you serious with that statement? You do realize Bryan Fuller never said "Oh, and we're definitely having a gay actor." right? There will be a character who is, and he or she will probably be played by a straight actor or actress too. I mean c'mon....

-- Steve

I don't understand how someone could object to inclusive casting and still call themselves a ST fan... ST has been all ABOUT inclusive casting for 50 freaking YEARS. 

Hear, hear!

And a-****-men!

 

In an ideal world that already has achieved true "colorblind" (or "genderblind") equality, deliberately inclusive casting wouldn't be necessary -- a black viewer would identify with a white character just as much as with a black character. And vice versa. But we're not there yet. Which is why the casting of certain ethnicities, as a deliberate statement, has a purpose.

However, for me personally, I don't mind either way, as long as I find a character interesting. I easily identify with or relate to Sisko or Geordi, even though I'm not black. It doesn't make a difference for me. So I prefer when the ethnic origin of a character isn't emphasized too much -- as it wouldn't be in a future society where it really doesn't matter anymore. Think of Geordi ... I don't think his skin color was ever made a topic on the show, not even in a remote allusion. I liked that. I literally have to make a conscious effort of remembering who on TNG had which skin color, because it's just no relevant category in my mind. When a show manages to achieve that, I consider that a success! :)

But then, the show is about a colorblind society, but for a not-yet colorblind audience. So of course it has to make statements.

I'm really fine with that, as long as it enables me to enjoy the colorblind future. :)

I relate to Julian Bashir and Phlox; and I'm neither Sudanese-British, nor Denobulan.  :giggle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^
Very much this.

And just because they've only mentioned a couple of character's traits so far doesn't mean there won't be further diversity in the crew.   And yes, why NOT a Muslim crew member?  We saw an Indian crew member in "That Which Survives" (Rhada, who wore a traditional Hindu "Bindi" on her forehead).   Maybe another someone from that hugely underrepresented segment of Earth's population (Khan Noonian Singh doesn't really count... hell, he was never even played by an Indian actor!).

Anyway, here's hoping.  Again, as scenario noted above:  diversity is in ST's very DNA. 

Whoa. Your ability to recall TOS is almost Data-like. I honestly had no idea there was another Indian character outside of Khan. Good catch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   

Just got back from a camping trip, so playing catch-up.  Mostly skimmed the thread so excuse me if I repeat stuff, my thoughts:

A tad dissappointed the show will be a prequel. I really wanted to see Trek forge ahead and not be beholden to other shows for it's canon.  I wanted something that could be a bold new look and not a pre-60s style that inevitably will clash and not mesh with what came before, ala Enterprise.  If the show ends up being anthology after all?  I am less disappointed...but I dunno. 

I do find it intriguing that the lead of the show, or at least the main focal point will be a Lt. Commander...a show with a Lower Decks angle could be intriguing.  I do like that their will be some diveristy...and I am disappointed to see Trek fans...fans of one of the groundbreaking diversity shows, calling it "PC!" and whatnot.  What a shame there are so many narrow-minded individuals that think because we had one black lead and one female lead, Trek has already fulfilled some quota...and we must return to white male lead...a quota that has been more than filled.  There isn't a checklist...there is a story they want to tell that happens to feature a female lead of lower rank.

Other than...still looking forward to new Trek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^
Very much this.

And just because they've only mentioned a couple of character's traits so far doesn't mean there won't be further diversity in the crew.   And yes, why NOT a Muslim crew member?  We saw an Indian crew member in "That Which Survives" (Rhada, who wore a traditional Hindu "Bindi" on her forehead).   Maybe another someone from that hugely underrepresented segment of Earth's population (Khan Noonian Singh doesn't really count... hell, he was never even played by an Indian actor!).

Anyway, here's hoping.  Again, as scenario noted above:  diversity is in ST's very DNA. 

Whoa. Your ability to recall TOS is almost Data-like. I honestly had no idea there was another Indian character outside of Khan. Good catch.

There was also Lt. Singh in "The Changeling"... :giggle:

As my wife says, I have no life. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

As for the casting, yeah I expected political correctness to trump over who is objectively the best actor for a role.

Are you serious with that statement? You do realize Bryan Fuller never said "Oh, and we're definitely having a gay actor." right? There will be a character who is, and he or she will probably be played by a straight actor or actress too. I mean c'mon....

-- Steve

I don't understand how someone could object to inclusive casting and still call themselves a ST fan... ST has been all ABOUT inclusive casting for 50 freaking YEARS. 

Hear, hear!

And a-****-men!

 

In an ideal world that already has achieved true "colorblind" (or "genderblind") equality, deliberately inclusive casting wouldn't be necessary -- a black viewer would identify with a white character just as much as with a black character. And vice versa. But we're not there yet. Which is why the casting of certain ethnicities, as a deliberate statement, has a purpose.

However, for me personally, I don't mind either way, as long as I find a character interesting. I easily identify with or relate to Sisko or Geordi, even though I'm not black. It doesn't make a difference for me. So I prefer when the ethnic origin of a character isn't emphasized too much -- as it wouldn't be in a future society where it really doesn't matter anymore. Think of Geordi ... I don't think his skin color was ever made a topic on the show, not even in a remote allusion. I liked that. I literally have to make a conscious effort of remembering who on TNG had which skin color, because it's just no relevant category in my mind. When a show manages to achieve that, I consider that a success! :)

But then, the show is about a colorblind society, but for a not-yet colorblind audience. So of course it has to make statements.

I'm really fine with that, as long as it enables me to enjoy the colorblind future. :)

I relate to Julian Bashir and Phlox; and I'm neither Sudanese-British, nor Denobulan.  :giggle:

Really? I could have sworn you were Denobulan ... :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got back from a camping trip, so playing catch-up.  Mostly skimmed the thread so excuse me if I repeat stuff, my thoughts:

A tad dissappointed the show will be a prequel. I really wanted to see Trek forge ahead and not be beholden to other shows for it's canon.  I wanted something that could be a bold new look and not a pre-60s style that inevitably will clash and not mesh with what came before, ala Enterprise.  If the show ends up being anthology after all?  I am less disappointed...but I dunno. 

I do find it intriguing that the lead of the show, or at least the main focal point will be a Lt. Commander...a show with a Lower Decks angle could be intriguing.  I do like that their will be some diveristy...and I am disappointed to see Trek fans...fans of one of the groundbreaking diversity shows, calling it "PC!" and whatnot.  What a shame there are so many narrow-minded individuals that think because we had one black lead and one female lead, Trek has already fulfilled some quota...and we must return to white male lead...a quota that has been more than filled.  There isn't a checklist...there is a story they want to tell that happens to feature a female lead of lower rank.

Other than...still looking forward to new Trek.

Since I very much agree with and share your profound disappointment with ST fans regarding this 'PC checklist' nonsense,  I won't further dwell on it here.    

What I am interested in is the other point that you and others noted; a ST series that is told NOT from the POV of the captain.  This is a very interesting challenge.  I hope that the show can live up to this.  Is it going to follow our lead as she rises the ranks and eventually becomes captain, or is it simply going to follow someone who is content to remain the rank that she has?    This is very interesting.   ST told from an all-new perspective.    This is the kind of forward/different thinking I would expect from 21st century Trek.  

Really? I could have sworn you were Denobulan ... :laugh:

A quarter... on my father's side.  :giggle: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, on a semi-related note... what of this notion that the show is "serialized." I understand it means all dozen-or-so episodes of the first season will feature one continuous story arc. But in the vein of shows like American Horror Story, do we get to see a whole new ship, crew and maybe even a different time period for Season 2? I want to say I heard this might be the case, but perhaps it's been debunked by now.

-- Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

You know, on a semi-related note... what of this notion that the show is "serialized." I understand it means all dozen-or-so episodes of the first season will feature one continuous story arc. But in the vein of shows like American Horror Story, do we get to see a whole new ship, crew and maybe even a different time period for Season 2? I want to say I heard this might be the case, but perhaps it's been debunked by now.

-- Steve

One clue might be the title... since I doubt they'll rename the show every season, and that they're showing different ships all named Discovery is unlikely too, it's probably not an anthology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As for the lead, I love how some have commented that we'd been there and done that with a black or female one. I guess we've also been quite there with a white dude! So I'll say this: At the very least,

I am all for having a much more diverse cast and a non-white lead. My only quibble with it (cause it's not even a really big deal) is that America has this dichotomy that there exists only two groups - white people and black people. I fully agree that just because we had Sisko does not mean there can never be another black captain. That would be absurd. Especially after 4 white captains. But it would be nice to have a lead that did not fall into that white/black divide. That is why I was so surprised about Edward James Olmos being the "lead" or a primary character in an ensemble cast for BSG. Latinos are rarely depicted in Trek, minus "ensign Rodriguez" the red shirt. I think Torres was supposed to be Latina (her human half anyways) but I don't remember them directly mentioning that.

I think for a female captain- why not a Muslim? Perhaps Iraqi or Afghani considering the current political climate. Just like Chekov, a Russian, was made a good guy during the Cold War era. Why not a Muslim? Or maybe the lead character (the lieutenant) could be that?

South Asian actors were robbed at the chance of playing Khan - something that many understandably lamented. Middle Eastern people are constantly forced to play terrorists. And Asians (both East and South) are forced to play stereotypical, badly accented, nerd roles.

Sci-fi gives them the opportunity to play a hero that isn't leaning on their race, but as an individual.

There should be room for them as leads as well.

Well, I agree with you, as my full post was stating. I just found ridiculous that people get upset about a female or non-white lead, as if a white dude hasn't been shown, or as if they couldn't relate to anything else than white dudes (a point made eloquently by other posters).

Yes, there should be "diverse" diversity, not only Black and White, not only from an American-centric POV (Although even us Non-Yanks will appreciate that it is, after-all an American show catering principally to an American audience), and it shouldn't even be limited to diverse humans, but to a diverse - read alien - crew. After all, the Federation is not, despite what Klingons - and previous shows - would let you believe, a "homo-sapiens-only club". Furthermore, even specific alien races could benefit from a little more diversity, instead of the usual Planet of Hats Star Trek gave us. What about atheist Bajorans, multicultural Vulcans (after all, aren't they supposed to support IDIC?), polyamorous Andorians (and their 4-people weddings[Coming in any combinations...hey look at that, IDIC!]) and other traits that wouldn't shape the entire population of a race?

Honestly, like Sehlat, Cdydatzigs (Hey, man, been a while!), Kenman, Sim and others have expressed previously in this thread, I really don't understand people who state being Trek fans and yet seem reluctant to see anything else than Vanilla Trek, thinking anything else would come with an agenda or a checklist that would denature it. Even more ironically, some of these "Conservative Trekkers", for lack of a better word, would like to see Trek go forward, which I can only assume they mean to say is in time only, and not in themes.

p.s.: For some further reading on Alien Monocultures in Trek: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/monoculture.htm

Edited by Tupperfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

Any idea what the event is? This sounds amazing To me. 

To my knowledge, there is wild speculation about the event, but nothing official so far.

Could be anything, I guess.

I suffer from "politically correct checklist" fatigue as well, but I think it's a creation of the media and how they zero in on these traits (or perceived lack thereof) to stir up discussion.  "Can a woman lead a scifi show?"  "Sulu's gay - does that mean he knows how to fly a ship?"  The answers are, of course, "Duh - been there and done that."  I look forward to the day when we can read articles that say, "One of our new characters is Lt. Swanson, a gay, black, female Muslim in a polygamous marriage with a Vulcan and an android" and society shrugs and says, "So?"  Maybe the way to make things status quo is to focus on the sources that report on the plotlines, character development, and production, making it clear that we're not hung up race, gender, or sexuality.

Yeah, I'm a bit annoyed by the buzz, too ... nothing is said about the lead character, except rank and gender. Gender or sexual orientation *shouldn't* be such an issue that this alone gets so much attention. Hopefully, some day, it won't anymore.

But then, the fact it does shows that perhaps we still need this buzz now.

 

I'd also hate token characters... like Chakotey was a token native American, portrayed in the most cliché manner. We don't need gay clichés like that. I'd rather see a character who's interesting, has many traits, just one of which happens to be homosexuality.

But when it comes to Fuller, I have full confidence in him that his characters won't be defined exclusively by their gayness. I'm pretty sure he'll at very least try to make them interesting for many other reasons, too.

Chakotay's problem was that they had no interest in having him have any specific ancestry. Like, if they said his ancestry was Aztec or Incan they'd have to have someone on the show that had some understanding of either. They didn't have any interest in him in anything other than as a dumping ground for New Age claptrap. 

This, and then, most of the other characters on VOY weren't particularly well-written either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duh, didn't even think of the name of the actual ship matching the title. :loopy:

-- Steve

^
But wouldn't it be interesting if the following season of the show had the adventures of the USS Discovery NCC-1031-D?  
:P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Honestly, like Sehlat, Cdydatzigs (Hey, man, been a while!), Kenman, Sim and others have expressed previously in this thread, I really don't understand people who state being Trek fans and yet seem reluctant to see anything else than Vanilla Trek, thinking anything else would come with an agenda or a checklist that would denature it.

I think it comes down to the fact that these fans are fine with the technology, exploration and science fiction of Star Trek, but are only willing to accept whatever diversity was tolerable 50 years ago as put forth by Gene. Anything beyond that is too much for them to handle.

-- Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think time travel should be out of the question. First known time travel was Naked Time.  I guess you could travel to the future, but not the past.  But if it's a one way trip, kind of defeats the purpose of setting it 10 years before TOS.

 

Why not an alien for once? It could also be a specific alien-dominated ship (as it seems to be possible with humans and Vulcans, which would actually make sense in a younger Federation) to which the human lead must adapt, discovering new themes, ideas and cultures aboard the ship itself. I'd love for that species to be the Andorians and see a treatment similar to what was done in the DS9 relaunch with their rich world and culture, but it could be anything. Of course, it could be quite expensive on a TV budget.

Star Trek has been about the HUMAN condition.  I don't think having an alien captain would be good for that purpose.  You lose the relateability. 

 

Archer already has.  Though I wouldn't care if no one time traveled in the new show; leave the time travel to Doctor Who... that show does it better anyway. ;)

And ST09 retconned Archer's death (the 'admiral Archer's beagle' reference).  Personally I'll take what's mentioned by characters in dialogue rather than what a barely visible graphic on screen.   Unless, of course, Nero's incursion into 2233 somehow saved Archer's life?   Or the loss of the Kelvin upped his personal will to live?  
Who knows.  

 

It was stuff like that which made ENT unpopular and unreconcilable with the prime universe.  I would argue that it didn't take place in the prime universe, but a similar one.  While there may have been an Archer in the prime universe, it wouldn't have been the one we watched. 

Too many screw ups.

 

If you die of old age, I don't think Nero could save you. 

Really, this is only one step removed from, "It doesn't matter how good she was, she was dating the producer."

 

In the case of Jeri Ryan, that's exactly what happened.  She didn't exactly get inundated with starring roles since.

 

It may not be what you want to hear, but it's not inaccurate.

 

But will they really make Trek beholden to a piece of canon that was nothing more than a glimpse on a small screen for half a second? To me, it's one of those things they can "ignore" to be honest. Despite the rough bumps that ENT had, I think it deserves a nice bit of closure - even if it's just through an elderly Archer doing a cameo.

They could also have a flashback.  Say there is a character that is 50 years old or so on the show, or even in his 40s.  Flashback to his earlier days and a meeting with the legendary Archer.

And just because they've only mentioned a couple of character's traits so far doesn't mean there won't be further diversity in the crew.   And yes, why NOT a Muslim crew member?

Because GR was so anti-religion, you really didn't see any of that.  You don't see religious Christians or Jews or Hindus or Buddhists, so why should there be Muslims?

An Arabic character?  Sure.  But a specific Muslim?  That would be pandering.

 


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"?

If it wasn't tokenism, why bother announcing it?  The issue is simple--they haven't had a gay character yet, so Fuller is checking the box.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duh, didn't even think of the name of the actual ship matching the title. :loopy:

-- Steve

^
But wouldn't it be interesting if the following season of the show had the adventures of the USS Discovery NCC-1031-D?  
:P

 

I said the same thing earlier in the post. It could be about various generations of Trek officers discovering space, and themselves, on an aging USS Discovery, or its next incarnation. It could be a very interesting concept, and I wouldn't dismiss it yet, despite Fuller saying it won't be an anthology series.

And then, of course, nobody could blame them of not going forward. Would also liberate them from canonical issues reasonably quickly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kc1966   

 

 

 

But one thing I am getting tired (and a little disturbed) of reading here (especially from supposedly forward-thinking ST fans) is that ensuring a female lead or a gay character is somehow not being more concerned with creating 'great characters.'   Having gay, female, or minority inclusion is NOT ignoring the need for 'great characters.'   Having diversity is not excluding the possibility for 'great characters.'   Are 'great' characters only white, straight and male??   Since when?   This is Star Trek, not the Six Million Dollar Man.  

And addressing the notion that since Ben Sisko was already a black commander, there doesn't 'need' to be another.   

Seriously, really??  Ben Sisko represents ALL black men (or people) everywhere?   It's no longer possible now to have another?   Same with Janeway: just because we had ONE female lead in a series that means we can't have another?  I mean, I guess they're saying that ALL women everywhere are the exact same.  So why do we need another female lead, right?

Oh, and that 'gay thing' was taken care of in ST Beyond, so it's all over now, right?   Wrong.  Dead wrong.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Sehlat,

If you were addressing my post, you misinterpreted what I said or perhaps I didn't say it clearly.  I said there is nothing in this news that excites me.  Other shows I like have already introduced gay characters   (Warehouse 13, Buffy, Flash) Other shows have had different POV  other than the commander's (MASH).  Other shows have been a ST prequel.

It isn't groundbreaking.  It is playing catch up and doing what TV/Hollywood does - these successes have blank, blank, and blank so we need them.  (Thus my comment about the danger of it degrading into a checklist.)  ST should have led in some of these things and didn't - from a pioneering perspective.  In fact, you can make the argument that ST (24th c. era) is too secular.  That a religious human needs to be included because 300 years is not going to alter 3000 years of belief . TOS is the only Trek that acknowledged that heritage. ( Balance of Terror, Bread and Circuses, Who Mourns for Adonis) TNG and DS9 did it in alien cultures but not Earth's.  It had "evolved" beyond that primitive need.

As to my Sisko/Janeway comment, I was not saying they were the end all be all.  I was saying that this isn't new to Trek or sci-fi.  Simply put, not new but some are acting like it is a great revelation.

Sim,

Very much agree with your comment.  ST stinks at relationships.  Maybe a part of a character (whatever orientation) but not the  focus.  I don't need Young and the Restless is space.

 

 

Whether I subscribe to CBS Access is going to be greatly determined by the pilot.  IF the characters are good and it is good Trek I will give it a chance.  Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now