Frontier

Lots of New Information on Discovery

586 posts in this topic

An anthology show that takes place in different eras of the same ship or subsequent ship with the same name! Now that would be an intriguing idea. 

Wouldn't be cool if the first season was the Discovery in that 10 years before Kirk...the second season in the movie era with that Lt. Cmdr now Captaining the ship...then flash forward to another era with a future Discovery witha whole new crew. Each season is about a crew on the ship discovering some new lifeform or something and also discovering something about themselves? Anthology seasons...yet with a linking thread between each year. 

Man I should've pitched this idea years ago...who knows what this show will actually be...but I think I am onto something!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read over some of the details, wow, what a let-down!

The most galling thing they are doing is putting in 12 mins of commercials onto a show that you are paying to stream online!!! They want you to pay a sub fee AND sit through commercials. What a joke. They are double-dipping. Who's going to pay $6 to stream an ad-supported TV station?

The setting was exactly what I didn't want. This era has also been beaten to death with 9 movies, to anyone who is complaining about the 21 seasons of TNG era Trek. Even worse, this is a prequel to TOS so they are still going to run into all of the canon problems that ENT had. I have zero interest in this era. Ugh. Why couldn't they have moved forward instead of back?

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.

^
Why do you automatically assume that a diverse cast (or characters) are automatically going to be lesser actors?   See: upthread.

And yes, posts like this are exactly what I'm talking about in my above rant... 

Because they are restricting the casting for certain characters to certain demographic groups. If a male is the best actor to read for the lead, why must it be a woman? Find the actors you want and make the characters fit the actor, not the other way around.

Also, are you going to conveniently skip over the part where you are paying $6 a month to stream a show with commercials?

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

Right, if you actually read my post you will see I never said anything about the orientation of the actors themselves. I'm talking about hiring the actor who reads best for the role, regardless of race, religion, orientation or self identity.

Edited by Hammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read over some of the details, wow, what a let-down!

The most galling thing they are doing is putting in 12 mins of commercials onto a show that you are paying to stream online!!! They want you to pay a sub fee AND sit through commercials. What a joke. They are double-dipping. Who's going to pay $6 to stream an ad-supported TV station?

The setting was exactly what I didn't want. This era has also been beaten to death with 9 movies, to anyone who is complaining about the 21 seasons of TNG era Trek. Even worse, this is a prequel to TOS so they are still going to run into all of the canon problems that ENT had. I have zero interest in this era. Ugh. Why couldn't they have moved forward instead of back?

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.

^
Why do you automatically assume that a diverse cast (or characters) are automatically going to be lesser actors?   See: upthread.

And yes, posts like this are exactly what I'm talking about in my above rant... 

Because they are restricting the casting for certain characters to certain demographic groups. If a male is the best actor to read for the lead, why must it be a woman? Find the actors you want and make the characters fit the actor, not the other way around.

Also, are you going to conveniently skip over the part where you are paying $6 a month to stream a show with commercials?

it is $6 a month BECAUSE there are commercials. It would be $8 or $9 a month without. 

As to the casting, I disagree. Wanting to the story of a woman is not limiting casting...because there are tons of woman out there. No one said they are limiting race or anything...thy want a female, and it could be a variety of types of woman that could potentially be chosen. You see it as a likitation, but I don't...because we've told the tales of 4 male leads...and going female is 2 female leads in 6 series, seems like potential for something different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, you can make the argument that [Star Trek] is too secular. That a religious human needs to be included because 300 years is not going to alter 3000 years of belief . 

No, but 250 years of further scientific study, exploration and learning what is really out there can disregard the 3,000 years of belief quite easily.

-- Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read over some of the details, wow, what a let-down!

The most galling thing they are doing is putting in 12 mins of commercials onto a show that you are paying to stream online!!! They want you to pay a sub fee AND sit through commercials. What a joke. They are double-dipping. Who's going to pay $6 to stream an ad-supported TV station?

The setting was exactly what I didn't want. This era has also been beaten to death with 9 movies, to anyone who is complaining about the 21 seasons of TNG era Trek. Even worse, this is a prequel to TOS so they are still going to run into all of the canon problems that ENT had. I have zero interest in this era. Ugh. Why couldn't they have moved forward instead of back?

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.

^
Why do you automatically assume that a diverse cast (or characters) are automatically going to be lesser actors?   See: upthread.

And yes, posts like this are exactly what I'm talking about in my above rant... 

Because they are restricting the casting for certain characters to certain demographic groups. If a male is the best actor to read for the lead, why must it be a woman? Find the actors you want and make the characters fit the actor, not the other way around.

Also, are you going to conveniently skip over the part where you are paying $6 a month to stream a show with commercials?

it is $6 a month BECAUSE there are commercials. It would be $8 or $9 a month without. 

As to the casting, I disagree. Wanting to the story of a woman is not limiting casting...because there are tons of woman out there. No one said they are limiting race or anything...thy want a female, and it could be a variety of types of woman that could potentially be chosen. You see it as a likitation, but I don't...because we've told the tales of 4 male leads...and going female is 2 female leads in 6 series, seems like potential for something different. 

Remember, I was a fan of Voyager. If Mulgrew was a man do you go with Bujold because she was the best woman to read?

In fact, you can make the argument that [Star Trek] is too secular. That a religious human needs to be included because 300 years is not going to alter 3000 years of belief . 

No, but 250 years of further scientific study, exploration and learning what is really out there can disregard the 3,000 years of belief quite easily.

-- Steve

I have a reply, but this is veering into KM territory. This isn't a thread for taking pot-shots at religious people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

        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. 

Ah StillKirok, I used to wonder why I bother to reply to you on a previous board...and yet, here I am!

Of course Trek aliens can't be relateabili..te? They can be, and have been, relatable, however (Ok, dick argument playing on a typo). Spock, Dax, Quark, Kira, Odo, Phlox even (and I guess the Voyager ones too) have shown aspects of a HUMAN condition we could all recognize. Because, let's face it, many of Trek aliens are just aspects of our humanity. Hell it's even canon that we all come from the same goo! I don't see why having an alien captain, who it seems, wouldn't be the lead anyway, couldn't be relatable.

 

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.

 No matter how she got in, she had more acting chops than most on this show, and her character had more substance as well. And if it is not inaccurate to state that she didn't exactly got inundated with starring roles (who does anyway?), she did have tangibly more subsequent roles than most Trek alumni (all series considered).

 

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.

Who cares? Are we caring about that?

Wait, the legendary Archer? Oh you mean, in-universe. Gotcha.

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.

I agree with you on that. But Roddenberry is dead. Do we think everybody on Earth will be an Atheist by then? The Agnostic in me doubts this. Besides, that GR vision was not even realized in TOS (granted, maybe it was not for a lack of trying on Gene's part)

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.

It can go beyond that. A sizable portion of fans have been asking for this for quite a while, the same way a black captain or a female one has been requested by a portion of the audience before, it is reasonable that he would address such a question, and more than logical that Trek finally takes that step. Does it mean the character would be a token gay dude or dudette (or genre non-specific dudet) with no other qualifiers? Was Geordi only blind? Was Sulu only Asian? Was Worf only Klingon? Okay, wrong example. And yet, stating that there will be an LGBT character in advance can't substantiate an accusation of tokenism, even if there was never such a main character before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. Yes. Because the likes of  Spock, Data, and Phlox weren't "relateable."  

Yes. Because Spock, Data, and Phlox 

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.

No one cares about a factoid you literally have to freeze frame an HD version of to see.

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

She's worked steadily since. And the fact that she was dating Braga did not impact negatively what was on the screen, as witnessed by the fact that she was actually GOOD onscreen. No one had to say, "She sucks and Seven sucks, why is she there?"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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.

First, I was addressing ALL comments about the 'checklist'; not just yours, but all of them.   
What is the ALTERNATIVE to a 'checklist' of diverse characters then?   Whitebread, all-hetero males?   And because we've already done 'one of those' doesn't mean it's done for all ST that is to come...

I've read over some of the details, wow, what a let-down!

The most galling thing they are doing is putting in 12 mins of commercials onto a show that you are paying to stream online!!! They want you to pay a sub fee AND sit through commercials. What a joke. They are double-dipping. Who's going to pay $6 to stream an ad-supported TV station?

The setting was exactly what I didn't want. This era has also been beaten to death with 9 movies, to anyone who is complaining about the 21 seasons of TNG era Trek. Even worse, this is a prequel to TOS so they are still going to run into all of the canon problems that ENT had. I have zero interest in this era. Ugh. Why couldn't they have moved forward instead of back?

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.

^
Why do you automatically assume that a diverse cast (or characters) are automatically going to be lesser actors?   See: upthread.

And yes, posts like this are exactly what I'm talking about in my above rant... 

Because they are restricting the casting for certain characters to certain demographic groups. If a male is the best actor to read for the lead, why must it be a woman? Find the actors you want and make the characters fit the actor, not the other way around.

Again; you're ASSUMING a male actor is automatically the best choice, casting wise.   That seems to be your default position.    If the character was conceived as a woman, then I'm fairly sure that casting a female actress might be the best way to go, casting wise... 

I don't understand your default assumption that making the role one way or another automatically 'limits' the casting pool.   

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.

 

NO MORE ABOUT JERI RYAN.

Seriously, it's derailing the thread and it borders on misogyny.   Not having it.  FINAL WORD.

 

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?

My what short memories...

We had a chapel on the ship ("Balance of Terror" "Tholian Web") and we saw what appeared to be a very Christian-style wedding (complete with a silent prayer).  And we also saw Lt. Rhada (upthread); a Hindu woman with a Bindi dot in the center of her head; a cultural/religious artifact of Indian Hindu culture.   Kirk says in "Who Mourns For Adonais?" that we (humans) find 'the one god' quite sufficient.  I'm an atheist, but ST was not totally 'anti-religion.'   And an entire series (DS9) was largely centered around the religion of the Bajoran people.
So there's all that. 

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. 

Nonsense.
Aliens on the show have always been the means through which to illustrate the human condition.   From Spock to Worf to Odo to Seven of Nine.   They comment on human culture, all the while participating IN it as well.  They're us.  The aliens on the show represent the diversity of Earth, not necessarily outer space.    Kirk even says at Spock's funeral, "Of all the souls I've encountered in my travels, his was the most... human." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, you can make the argument that [Star Trek] is too secular. That a religious human needs to be included because 300 years is not going to alter 3000 years of belief . 

No, but 250 years of further scientific study, exploration and learning what is really out there can disregard the 3,000 years of belief quite easily.

-- Steve

Sorry, but religion will be in no danger of extinction in Roddenberry's time, despite what he hoped for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

        Man I should've pitched this idea years ago...who knows what this show will actually be...but I think I am onto something!

You are? Hold on, you're not the only one that has been speculating about this! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Seven and The Doctor were pretty much it. Even Janeway played second fiddle to them more often than not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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.

First, I was addressing ALL comments about the 'checklist'; not just yours, but all of them.   
What is the ALTERNATIVE to a 'checklist' of diverse characters then?   Whitebread, all-hetero males?   And because we've already done 'one of those' doesn't mean it's done for all ST that is to come...

I've read over some of the details, wow, what a let-down!

The most galling thing they are doing is putting in 12 mins of commercials onto a show that you are paying to stream online!!! They want you to pay a sub fee AND sit through commercials. What a joke. They are double-dipping. Who's going to pay $6 to stream an ad-supported TV station?

The setting was exactly what I didn't want. This era has also been beaten to death with 9 movies, to anyone who is complaining about the 21 seasons of TNG era Trek. Even worse, this is a prequel to TOS so they are still going to run into all of the canon problems that ENT had. I have zero interest in this era. Ugh. Why couldn't they have moved forward instead of back?

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.

^
Why do you automatically assume that a diverse cast (or characters) are automatically going to be lesser actors?   See: upthread.

And yes, posts like this are exactly what I'm talking about in my above rant... 

Because they are restricting the casting for certain characters to certain demographic groups. If a male is the best actor to read for the lead, why must it be a woman? Find the actors you want and make the characters fit the actor, not the other way around.

Again; you're ASSUMING a male actor is automatically the best choice, casting wise.   That seems to be your default position.    If the character was conceived as a woman, then I'm fairly sure that casting a female actress might be the best way to go, casting wise... 

I don't understand your default assumption that making the role one way or another automatically 'limits' the casting pool.   

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.

 

NO MORE ABOUT JERI RYAN.

Seriously, it's derailing the thread and it borders on misogyny.   Not having it.  FINAL WORD.

 

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?

My what short memories...

We had a chapel on the ship ("Balance of Terror" "Tholian Web") and we saw what appeared to be a very Christian-style wedding (complete with a silent prayer).  And we also saw Lt. Rhada (upthread); a Hindu woman with a Bindi dot in the center of her head; a cultural/religious artifact of Indian Hindu culture.   Kirk says in "Who Mourns For Adonais?" that we (humans) find 'the one god' quite sufficient.  I'm an atheist, but ST was not totally 'anti-religion.'   And an entire series (DS9) was largely centered around the religion of the Bajoran people.
So there's all that. 

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. 

Nonsense.
Aliens on the show have always been the means through which to illustrate the human condition.   From Spock to Worf to Odo to Seven of Nine.   They comment on human culture, all the while participating IN it as well.  They're us.  The aliens on the show represent the diversity of Earth, not necessarily outer space.    Kirk even says at Spock's funeral, "Of all the souls I've encountered in my travels, his was the most... human." 

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.

 

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.  

And shame on any alleged fan of Star Trek (with a 50 year history of inclusivity) who thinks that.   Comments like that remind me of the network execs who sent the memo to Gene Roddenberry reminding him to make sure he casts his show "sensibly" (meaning: all whites). 

Having diverse casting is not about a list of 'boxes to be checked' for the big, politically correct list of some kind.    These are characters in a show; a show that has survived (and thrived) largely because of its eye on diversity.   How many little girls loved ST because of Janeway?   How many black people (including Whoopi Goldberg, astronaut Mae Jameson and even the late Dr. Martin Luther King) were fans of ST because of the inclusion of a prominent black character on the bridge of the Enterprise?   How many middle-Eastern fans might've been inspired by Sudanese-British actor Alexander Siddig's Dr. Bashir?  

Personally, as an 'ethnic caucasian,' (I'm a bit of a mutt) I think there is something to love and inspire with any or ALL of these characters.  
So having a new female lead or another black character or a gay character is NOT checking off boxes on a PC checklist; it's Star Trek doing what is has ALWAYS done since 19-f#@king-66.   

Sorry if that offends anyone, but seriously; to those that think that ST's long history of inclusivity is only a 'PC checklist' I have to ask: do you even WATCH the same show that I do?   And to those who don't think that ST's diversity was the key to its survival?  Well, when was the last time you attended a Six Million Dollar Man or Fall Guy convention?  

Even "I Love Lucy", arguably one of the most beloved sitcoms of all time, broke new ground by having a (real-life) couple with a Cuban bandleader marrying a crazy Irish-American redhead.   Diversity is what keeps things future-forward.   I don't think ST would've survived for 50 years if the entire cast looked like the cast of "Forbidden Planet" (ironically one of Roddenberry's templates for the show; personally I think ST improved upon it). 

Nothing about these leaks excite me at all.  If the captain is shown, it is going to have to be handled well - in fact, to me, it presents the problem I think Supergirl is going to run into by having Superman added this year.  How do you have the supreme authority around and not be the focus?  I guess they could go the MASH route where Hawkeye was really the focus of the show but Cols. Blake and Potter were essential  characters - Potter more so than Blake IMO.

As to the lead being female or African-American?  Been there done that to a certain degree with Janeway and Sisko. As for the gay character other shows have already gone there.  (Buffy, Waehouse 13, Flash).  If it is just a part of the character, as some have mentioned (I think of the Flash and the handling of  Captain Singh, for example) I don't see it as a big ground breaking event.  If anything, just catching up to other shows.  (Of course, being straight and a Christian, maybe my perspective is different from those who have felt unrepresented on the show - but that in itself can be a problem and could lead to character check lists like StillKiork mentioned, although I don't think that is the case here.)

Personally, if they were going to do a prequel, I would have preferred it tying into Enterprise in some way.  The first year could have even had guest appearances from that cast as they focus on the Romulan War and then the founding of the Federation as a bridge to Discovery's mission.

I will wait to see the pilot and if it does anything for me, I will subscribe.  If not, I'll wait until they are rented/sold either through Amazon Video or on DVD.

I look at the lead African-American female lead and a gay character as cool, sounds good. Its nice but not that big a deal. On the other hand, I would be very annoyed if all of the major characters were white middle aged males.

It's not because of pc its because I want the show to be realistic. Google U.S. Army and look at all of the group pictures. They're not all Western European descent guys.  About 5 to 10% of people are gay. 1/2 the population are women. Worldwide about 18.5% of people are black. Sixty percent are of Asian descent. Having an all male, all white, all straight, all human crew would be boring and unrealistic. 

The reason that my reaction is just a mild, cool rather than a celebration is because I expected it of Star Trek. Diversity is in its DNA. 

^
This. 
Very MUCH this.  Written like a real ST fan. 


I just came back a few days ago from Las Vegas (along with our own prometheus), celebrating 50 years of ST at a big convention.   And, as you can easily see from my 260-odd pictures (available for viewing in the General ST section; under the Star Trek Las Vegas thread) that the fans (and actors) there were of ALL sizes, shapes and colors.  

And I also saw a LOT of handicapped fans as well;  to be honest, I've never seen so many wheelchairs and mobility assistance-devices in one building that was not a hospital.  Not even at Comic Con, San Diego (and that event has 130,000 people).   

ST gives all of its fans (no matter their color, religion, sexual orientation or physical well being) hope.  Hope for a positive future where none of these things will matter.   You spend a few days in a place like that and it kind of rubs off on you.   So much so that you find yourself not wanting to leave.    You kind of wish that the 'real' world outside of the ST bubble could be a helluva lot more like Star Trek.    

THAT is why inclusivity and diversity (in casting and in characters) is part of the CORE of Star Trek. 

 

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.

Sehlat,  take a breath.  Now listen.  I am NOT in favor of a check list at all.  I want good characters.  What I am saying is there is a danger of it becoming a check list for (or against) characters because they are or are not something.  I WANT GOOD CHARACTERS.  I don't care if it is an all alien, female, male, or Canadian crew.  (OK.  Maybe not all Canadian.  JK Tup)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sehlat,  take a breath.  Now listen.  I am NOT in favor of a check list at all.  I want good characters.  What I am saying is there is a danger of it becoming a check list for (or against) characters because they are or are not something.  I WANT GOOD CHARACTERS.

kc1966~

I was addressing ALL posts on the checklist not just yours.  And we ALL want good characters; but why is having good characters seemingly contrary to having diverse characters?  They're not mutually exclusive.  THAT is the point I'm making.

And thanks for the medical advice, but I'm breathing fine...  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sehlat,  take a breath.  Now listen.  I am NOT in favor of a check list at all.  I want good characters.  What I am saying is there is a danger of it becoming a check list for (or against) characters because they are or are not something.  I WANT GOOD CHARACTERS.

kc1966~

I was addressing ALL posts on the checklist not just yours.  And we ALL want good characters; but why is having good characters seemingly contrary to having diverse characters?  They're not mutually exclusive.  THAT is the point I'm making.

And thanks for the medical advice, but I'm breathing fine...  ;)

You sure?  I thought you lived in Smogafornia? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sehlat,  take a breath.  Now listen.  I am NOT in favor of a check list at all.  I want good characters.  What I am saying is there is a danger of it becoming a check list for (or against) characters because they are or are not something.  I WANT GOOD CHARACTERS.

kc1966~

I was addressing ALL posts on the checklist not just yours.  And we ALL want good characters; but why is having good characters seemingly contrary to having diverse characters?  They're not mutually exclusive.  THAT is the point I'm making.

And thanks for the medical advice, but I'm breathing fine...  ;)

You sure?  I thought you lived in Smogafornia? 

Not since we got all of that emissions control legislation; the air is a lot better than it was 20 years ago, that's for sure...:thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been th

You sure?  I thought you lived in Smogafornia? 

Not since we got all of that emissions control legislation; the air is a lot better than it was 20 years ago, that's for sure...:thumbup:

I've been there recently and the LA met area was still kinda scary in that regards. When you drive above it and get in it, you feel it. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ST gives all of its fans (no matter their color, religion, sexual orientation or physical well being) hope.  Hope for a positive future where none of these things will matter.   You spend a few days in a place like that and it kind of rubs off on you.   So much so that you find yourself not wanting to leave.    You kind of wish that the 'real' world outside of the ST bubble could be a helluva lot more like Star Trek.    

As an aside along those lines, I'd had to leave my backpack at/near my seat more than once and at more than one of the Vegas cons.

Everything exactly as I left it when I got back to it. 

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

 

Actually, if anything that might support my inquiry even more! What if the first season is in the pre-TOS era, the second season is in the TOS-movie era, the third season is in the 24th century, etc. Then the one thing they all have in common is the name of the ship is Discovery, albeit with a different NCC-number each time? Hmmmm ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again; you're ASSUMING a male actor is automatically the best choice, casting wise.   That seems to be your default position.    If the character was conceived as a woman, then I'm fairly sure that casting a female actress might be the best way to go, casting wise... 

I don't understand your default assumption that making the role one way or another automatically 'limits' the casting pool.  

Okay, here's an example. As we all know, Picard was supposed to be a Frenchman. Sir Patrick blew them away though, so they picked him. Had they limited themselves to 'French actors only' then we would have missed out on Patrick Stewart's Picard. They hired the best actor and made the character fit the actor, not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been th

You sure?  I thought you lived in Smogafornia? 

Not since we got all of that emissions control legislation; the air is a lot better than it was 20 years ago, that's for sure...:thumbup:

I've been there recently and the LA met area was still kinda scary in that regards. When you drive above it and get in it, you feel it. :P

All I can say is that it used to be MUCH worse.  ;)

The air pollution (how it used to be, anyway) was quite a shock when my family and I first moved here in the early '70s; but it has gotten better, believe it or not.   Something that makes my inner optimist hopeful.  :thumbup:

ST gives all of its fans (no matter their color, religion, sexual orientation or physical well being) hope.  Hope for a positive future where none of these things will matter.   You spend a few days in a place like that and it kind of rubs off on you.   So much so that you find yourself not wanting to leave.    You kind of wish that the 'real' world outside of the ST bubble could be a helluva lot more like Star Trek.    

As an aside along those lines, I'd had to leave my backpack at/near my seat more than once and at more than one of the Vegas cons.

Everything exactly as I left it when I got back to it. 

^
This.

ST fans are a very benign & trustworthy (and diverse) bunch.   I never worried about leaving my belongings in my seat briefly unattended.  I also saw many random acts of kindness that I don't see too often at Comic Con; people offering to take pics for strangers, people helping people out of wheelchairs/mobility-devices for photo ops, people offering up their places in lines for others, etc.   It was quite uplifting. 

There is a sense at ST conventions that one has found one's 'tribe' as it were.   Personally, I would like to live in a world that mimicked a ST convention if I could. :)

 

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

I completely agree with you that anyone getting upset over the captain being a female, perhaps black, is silly. No one should be up in arms about this.

I won't speak for anyone else but I think their main argument is ... they don't want to be the main selling point of the character. I understand why a lot of Trek fans have been waiting for it and these announcements are big. Especially the LGBT character considering that Trek failed on this front in a glaring way. I think this was the mistake the rebooted Ghostbusters made. Their biggest selling point was two things: this a re-imagining of a franchise and it is all women. That isn't enough to sell an idea. For some, it is condescending in its pandering. I'm not saying that is what Fuller did. I think he was just giving us a nice little glimpse on who some of the cast is. A teaser. Unfortunately, some people are jumping the gun and trying to make it seem like that is the only selling points. Give it time to those criticizing this. I am sure there is a lot more to these characters. I think Fuller was simply addressing the unfortunate gaps all of the past Treks have had ...

And I couldn't agree with you more about the lack of diversity with the aliens. This is one place that Trek has had a lazy track record. All the aliens were of one variety. Klingons = barbarian vikings. Ferengi = greedy. Vulcans = humorless and stoic. etc. So every time one of those aliens deviated from this at even the slightest level, we had fans screaming it was a plot hole. "A Klingon that wasn't a mindless savage!?!?!!?!?" Babylon 5, Star Wars, Farscape, and most other sci-fi do a much better job at giving aliens a personality that could be something different from the main culture.

I too hope this show would drop the whole "All of alien A behaves this way." trope. Or as you perfectly linked, the monoculture syndrome. Only one alien race should have that - the Borg. That's it.

I also like your idea of an alien captain. If not the major character - maybe another Starfleet ship they run into? IDK.

As for the comment about religion not needing to be an issue ...

I am arguably the most militant atheist on this site, but Trek has already proven religion is still alive and well.

Kirk is apparently a Christian, Cassidy is a Christian, Sisko seems to be agnostic, Chakotay was vaguely spiritual, there was a chapel on the Enterprise, and Sehlat Vie gave numerous examples on Hinduism. I think in that really boring Data episode, the crew was celebrating Diwali (the Hindu festival of lights). Religion exists. So Islam is likely to still exist too, even if it is radically reformed. Plus, I shouldn't have put the focus on the captain being Muslim. I meant more being an Arab, Iranian, Pakistani, Indonesian, Afghani, etc. An ethnic group largely connected to Islam to give a positive depiction in a climate where the depictions of them are very toxic. That is my main point. Not focusing on their religiosity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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.

First, I was addressing ALL comments about the 'checklist'; not just yours, but all of them.   
What is the ALTERNATIVE to a 'checklist' of diverse characters then?   Whitebread, all-hetero males?   And because we've already done 'one of those' doesn't mean it's done for all ST that is to come...

I've read over some of the details, wow, what a let-down!

The most galling thing they are doing is putting in 12 mins of commercials onto a show that you are paying to stream online!!! They want you to pay a sub fee AND sit through commercials. What a joke. They are double-dipping. Who's going to pay $6 to stream an ad-supported TV station?

The setting was exactly what I didn't want. This era has also been beaten to death with 9 movies, to anyone who is complaining about the 21 seasons of TNG era Trek. Even worse, this is a prequel to TOS so they are still going to run into all of the canon problems that ENT had. I have zero interest in this era. Ugh. Why couldn't they have moved forward instead of back?

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.

^
Why do you automatically assume that a diverse cast (or characters) are automatically going to be lesser actors?   See: upthread.

And yes, posts like this are exactly what I'm talking about in my above rant... 

Because they are restricting the casting for certain characters to certain demographic groups. If a male is the best actor to read for the lead, why must it be a woman? Find the actors you want and make the characters fit the actor, not the other way around.

Again; you're ASSUMING a male actor is automatically the best choice, casting wise.   That seems to be your default position.    If the character was conceived as a woman, then I'm fairly sure that casting a female actress might be the best way to go, casting wise... 

I don't understand your default assumption that making the role one way or another automatically 'limits' the casting pool.   

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.

 

NO MORE ABOUT JERI RYAN.

Seriously, it's derailing the thread and it borders on misogyny.   Not having it.  FINAL WORD.

 

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?

My what short memories...

We had a chapel on the ship ("Balance of Terror" "Tholian Web") and we saw what appeared to be a very Christian-style wedding (complete with a silent prayer).  And we also saw Lt. Rhada (upthread); a Hindu woman with a Bindi dot in the center of her head; a cultural/religious artifact of Indian Hindu culture.   Kirk says in "Who Mourns For Adonais?" that we (humans) find 'the one god' quite sufficient.  I'm an atheist, but ST was not totally 'anti-religion.'   And an entire series (DS9) was largely centered around the religion of the Bajoran people.
So there's all that. 

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. 

Nonsense.
Aliens on the show have always been the means through which to illustrate the human condition.   From Spock to Worf to Odo to Seven of Nine.   They comment on human culture, all the while participating IN it as well.  They're us.  The aliens on the show represent the diversity of Earth, not necessarily outer space.    Kirk even says at Spock's funeral, "Of all the souls I've encountered in my travels, his was the most... human." 

 

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.

 

 

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.  

And shame on any alleged fan of Star Trek (with a 50 year history of inclusivity) who thinks that.   Comments like that remind me of the network execs who sent the memo to Gene Roddenberry reminding him to make sure he casts his show "sensibly" (meaning: all whites). 

Having diverse casting is not about a list of 'boxes to be checked' for the big, politically correct list of some kind.    These are characters in a show; a show that has survived (and thrived) largely because of its eye on diversity.   How many little girls loved ST because of Janeway?   How many black people (including Whoopi Goldberg, astronaut Mae Jameson and even the late Dr. Martin Luther King) were fans of ST because of the inclusion of a prominent black character on the bridge of the Enterprise?   How many middle-Eastern fans might've been inspired by Sudanese-British actor Alexander Siddig's Dr. Bashir?  

Personally, as an 'ethnic caucasian,' (I'm a bit of a mutt) I think there is something to love and inspire with any or ALL of these characters.  
So having a new female lead or another black character or a gay character is NOT checking off boxes on a PC checklist; it's Star Trek doing what is has ALWAYS done since 19-f#@king-66.   

Sorry if that offends anyone, but seriously; to those that think that ST's long history of inclusivity is only a 'PC checklist' I have to ask: do you even WATCH the same show that I do?   And to those who don't think that ST's diversity was the key to its survival?  Well, when was the last time you attended a Six Million Dollar Man or Fall Guy convention?  

Even "I Love Lucy", arguably one of the most beloved sitcoms of all time, broke new ground by having a (real-life) couple with a Cuban bandleader marrying a crazy Irish-American redhead.   Diversity is what keeps things future-forward.   I don't think ST would've survived for 50 years if the entire cast looked like the cast of "Forbidden Planet" (ironically one of Roddenberry's templates for the show; personally I think ST improved upon it). 

Nothing about these leaks excite me at all.  If the captain is shown, it is going to have to be handled well - in fact, to me, it presents the problem I think Supergirl is going to run into by having Superman added this year.  How do you have the supreme authority around and not be the focus?  I guess they could go the MASH route where Hawkeye was really the focus of the show but Cols. Blake and Potter were essential  characters - Potter more so than Blake IMO.

As to the lead being female or African-American?  Been there done that to a certain degree with Janeway and Sisko. As for the gay character other shows have already gone there.  (Buffy, Waehouse 13, Flash).  If it is just a part of the character, as some have mentioned (I think of the Flash and the handling of  Captain Singh, for example) I don't see it as a big ground breaking event.  If anything, just catching up to other shows.  (Of course, being straight and a Christian, maybe my perspective is different from those who have felt unrepresented on the show - but that in itself can be a problem and could lead to character check lists like StillKiork mentioned, although I don't think that is the case here.)

Personally, if they were going to do a prequel, I would have preferred it tying into Enterprise in some way.  The first year could have even had guest appearances from that cast as they focus on the Romulan War and then the founding of the Federation as a bridge to Discovery's mission.

I will wait to see the pilot and if it does anything for me, I will subscribe.  If not, I'll wait until they are rented/sold either through Amazon Video or on DVD.

I look at the lead African-American female lead and a gay character as cool, sounds good. Its nice but not that big a deal. On the other hand, I would be very annoyed if all of the major characters were white middle aged males.

It's not because of pc its because I want the show to be realistic. Google U.S. Army and look at all of the group pictures. They're not all Western European descent guys.  About 5 to 10% of people are gay. 1/2 the population are women. Worldwide about 18.5% of people are black. Sixty percent are of Asian descent. Having an all male, all white, all straight, all human crew would be boring and unrealistic. 

The reason that my reaction is just a mild, cool rather than a celebration is because I expected it of Star Trek. Diversity is in its DNA. 

^
This. 
Very MUCH this.  Written like a real ST fan. 


I just came back a few days ago from Las Vegas (along with our own prometheus), celebrating 50 years of ST at a big convention.   And, as you can easily see from my 260-odd pictures (available for viewing in the General ST section; under the Star Trek Las Vegas thread) that the fans (and actors) there were of ALL sizes, shapes and colors.  

And I also saw a LOT of handicapped fans as well;  to be honest, I've never seen so many wheelchairs and mobility assistance-devices in one building that was not a hospital.  Not even at Comic Con, San Diego (and that event has 130,000 people).   

ST gives all of its fans (no matter their color, religion, sexual orientation or physical well being) hope.  Hope for a positive future where none of these things will matter.   You spend a few days in a place like that and it kind of rubs off on you.   So much so that you find yourself not wanting to leave.    You kind of wish that the 'real' world outside of the ST bubble could be a helluva lot more like Star Trek.    

THAT is why inclusivity and diversity (in casting and in characters) is part of the CORE of Star Trek. 

 

 

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.

Sehlat,  take a breath.  Now listen.  I am NOT in favor of a check list at all.  I want good characters.  What I am saying is there is a danger of it becoming a check list for (or against) characters because they are or are not something.  I WANT GOOD CHARACTERS.  I don't care if it is an all alien, female, male, or Canadian crew.  (OK.  Maybe not all Canadian.  JK Tup)

I'm curious, if someone was making a remake of love story (love is never having to say your sorry) and the best two actors were an Asian man and a Black man, would it be a check list if someone said we have to have a man and a woman since the original movie did? If someone wanted to have an Asian man and a Black man in love story, more power to them but you shouldn't make only the best actor the only consideration. When they made the mini series Roots, did it have too many black people in it? 

If you have to choose only the best actor with no other consideration, you'd end up with a lot of strange choices.  

There's nothing check list about the producer deciding that they want a particular type of person for a particular type of role.  When a writer makes good characters, they want a bunch of people who are different from each other. 7 cookie cutter people have no drama. 

The checklist argument is absurd. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Founder, as usual, brings up a great point:

And I couldn't agree with you more about the lack of diversity with the aliens. This is one place that Trek has had a lazy track record. All the aliens were of one variety. Klingons = barbarian vikings. Ferengi = greedy. Vulcans = humorless and stoic. etc. So every time one of those aliens deviated from this at even the slightest level, we had fans screaming it was a plot hole. "A Klingon that wasn't a mindless savage!?!?!!?!?" Babylon 5, Star Wars, Farscape, and most other sci-fi do a much better job at giving aliens a personality that could be something different from the main culture.

^
This was one of the reasons I like the occasional alien who 'breaks the mold' so to speak; the likable Borg ("Hugh" in "I, Borg"), Gorkon in TUC (probably the most 'civilized' Klingon we've ever seen in ST), the non-greedy Ferengi scientist ("Rayga") who developed multiphasic shielding (TNG "Suspicions"), etc.   If we do indeed see an alien captain in ST DSC, this would be a great opportunity.   Even T'Pol on ENT was very interesting; she was less in control than other Vulcans we've seen on post-TOS Star Trek series.  She was shaded and layered; hence, interesting.   I've come to appreciate what she brought to the show the more I revisit ENT. 

And since this show isn't supposed to be centered around the captain, it really shouldn't matter if the captain isn't human or not.

 

The captain will be a secondary character, not the lead.  I'm personally very excited about a ST series that attempts to offer a different perspective than what we've seen before...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And since this show isn't supposed to be centered around the captain, it really shouldn't matter if the captain isn't human or not.

 

The captain will be a secondary character, not the lead.  I'm personally very excited about a ST series that attempts to offer a different perspective than what we've seen before...

If it had just been a rehash of everything that had come before we'd be complaining about that. too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

        Man I should've pitched this idea years ago...who knows what this show will actually be...but I think I am onto something!

You are? Hold on, you're not the only one that has been speculating about this! ;)

Really? I've not seen anything like that out there...but then again I really only hang out at one forum.  I just never thought of an anthology show based around like a ship or a ship designation before.  I just thought completely fresh with each season.  But having a running thread, now that would be a new concept for a show of that type.  I have been skimming this thread though, I thought I was just latching onto one idea and running with it!

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