Frontier

Lots of New Information on Discovery

397 posts in this topic

I'm gay. If I were a showrunner for Discovery I would tell my writers, "Ok fellas, here's our #1 rule when it comes to Mr. _______. The words "gay" or "homosexual" will never be spoken or included in any dialogue in this show. He's a character who will happen to have a boyfriend or male spouse, but it will be treated like all the others. By the 23rd century, it will be as topic-worthy as being left-handed. Ready? Ok, let's go write a series."

I would set it that way as well.

Every once in a while, a random person will notice "oh, you're left handed!" It never goes beyond that (how could it?), but I'm always surprised that people would take the time to comment on such a banal habit. That's clearly the way Star Trek, of all franchises, should have went with homosexuality a long time ago.

Edited by Tupperfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gay. If I were a showrunner for Discovery I would tell my writers, "Ok fellas, here's our #1 rule when it comes to Mr. _______. The words "gay" or "homosexual" will never be spoken or included in any dialogue in this show. He's a character who will happen to have a boyfriend or male spouse, but it will be treated like all the others. By the 23rd century, it will be as topic-worthy as being left-handed. Ready? Ok, let's go write a series."

I would set it that way as well.

Every once in a while, a random person will notice "oh, you're left handed!" It never goes beyond that (how could it?), but I'm always surprised that people would take the time to comment on such a banal habit. That's clearly the way Star Trek, of all franchises, should have went with homosexuality a long time ago.

It's my understanding that the TNG episode where Riker falls for the "transgender" alien "female" was going to be the moment where Star Trek finally tackled homosexuality, but they decided it was too risky ( I.e., they got cold feet) and they  went ahead and just made her a normal female of sorts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The details sound interesting, I just hope they don't botch the gay character, the best way of going about it is to not make a thing of it because in the Federation it would not be a thing. Then of course have episodes where's there bigoted societies and then boo-yah bring out the social commentary.

Yeah, the minute they start having them walk around with the big, neon arrow with "gay character" in it, it's over. 

 

But yeah, as Integral said; if they do a proper gay relationship?  I just hope they don't botch it. 

I'm gay. If I were a showrunner for Discovery I would tell my writers, "Ok fellas, here's our #1 rule when it comes to Mr. _______. The words "gay" or "homosexual" will never be spoken or included in any dialogue in this show. He's a character who will happen to have a boyfriend or male spouse, but it will be treated like all the others. By the 23rd century, it will be as topic-worthy as being left-handed. Ready? Ok, let's go write a series."

^
Exactly THIS. 

"Gay" or even homosexual seems like wording used to describe something outside the realm of a "normal" relationship.   Which to me, is a load of crap.   We love whom we love.  Gender is irrelevant.   I would like to see a same-sex fling/relationship receive no more of a raised eyebrow than Capt. Kirk's endless dalliances.  

Beyond did it PERFECTLY.

You just see Sulu scoop up (Demora?) and the three of them head off together, arms around each other.

What does Kirk do? Not turn to McCoy "Wow, I didn't know Sulu was gay? Did you know he was gay? That's so interesting that he's gay. It's totally cool that he's gay."

He just looks on, happy that one of his crew and one of his friends has a family and is happy as he watches them head off, same as it would be for any other crew member.

I'm gay. If I were a showrunner for Discovery I would tell my writers, "Ok fellas, here's our #1 rule when it comes to Mr. _______. The words "gay" or "homosexual" will never be spoken or included in any dialogue in this show. He's a character who will happen to have a boyfriend or male spouse, but it will be treated like all the others. By the 23rd century, it will be as topic-worthy as being left-handed. Ready? Ok, let's go write a series."

I would set it that way as well.

Every once in a while, a random person will notice "oh, you're left handed!" It never goes beyond that (how could it?), but I'm always surprised that people would take the time to comment on such a banal habit. That's clearly the way Star Trek, of all franchises, should have went with homosexuality a long time ago.

It's my understanding that the TNG episode where Riker falls for the "transgender" alien "female" was going to be the moment where Star Trek finally tackled homosexuality, but they decided it was too risky ( I.e., they got cold feet) and they  went ahead and just made her a normal female of sorts. 

I'm glad they just didn't scrap it all. It was still very effective, as witnessed by the backlash I remember. It made people uncomfortable...and sometimes people need to be challenged.

I thought "The Host" worked well. too.

Edited by prometheus59650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beyond did it PERFECTLY.

You just see Sulu scoop up (Demora?) and the three of them head off together, arms around each other.

What does Kirk do? Not turn to McCoy "Wow, I didn't know Sulu was gay? Did you know he was gay? That's so interesting that he's gay. It's totally cool that he's gay."

He just looks on, happy that one of his crew and one of his friends has a family and is happy as he watches them head off, same as it would be for any other crew member.

Sulu is gay?!? That's so cool!  [/missingthepoint]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The details sound interesting, I just hope they don't botch the gay character, the best way of going about it is to not make a thing of it because in the Federation it would not be a thing. Then of course have episodes where's there bigoted societies and then boo-yah bring out the social commentary.

Yeah, the minute they start having them walk around with the big, neon arrow with "gay character" in it, it's over. 

 

But yeah, as Integral said; if they do a proper gay relationship?  I just hope they don't botch it. 

I'm gay. If I were a showrunner for Discovery I would tell my writers, "Ok fellas, here's our #1 rule when it comes to Mr. _______. The words "gay" or "homosexual" will never be spoken or included in any dialogue in this show. He's a character who will happen to have a boyfriend or male spouse, but it will be treated like all the others. By the 23rd century, it will be as topic-worthy as being left-handed. Ready? Ok, let's go write a series."

^
Exactly THIS. 

"Gay" or even homosexual seems like wording used to describe something outside the realm of a "normal" relationship.   Which to me, is a load of crap.   We love whom we love.  Gender is irrelevant.   I would like to see a same-sex fling/relationship receive no more of a raised eyebrow than Capt. Kirk's endless dalliances.  

Beyond did it PERFECTLY.

You just see Sulu scoop up (Demora?) and the three of them head off together, arms around each other.

What does Kirk do? Not turn to McCoy "Wow, I didn't know Sulu was gay? Did you know he was gay? That's so interesting that he's gay. It's totally cool that he's gay."

He just looks on, happy that one of his crew and one of his friends has a family and is happy as he watches them head off, same as it would be for any other crew member.

Honestly the look in Kirk's eyes during that scene seemed almost one of "I wish I had a family" the gay thing didn't even factor into it.  He looks at Chekov clearly making the moves on someones, nd he smiles because he knows he has been that way...and then he looks at Sulu with a family and he looks like he is happy for him, but has this inner regret.  It was a subyle moment, but it came early in the film and really felt like a Kirk moment to me...one that finally sold Pine in the role for me. 

Edited by kenman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have it subtle at the beginning. The crew is greeted by their families and some have an opposite sex partner and some a same sex partner, aliens might have 3 or 4 partners or more and some have no partner at all.  If you want to explore the topic meet an alien or a separate group of humans that make a big deal about it and the discovery people just look confused at first and then realize that they are serious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The details sound interesting, I just hope they don't botch the gay character, the best way of going about it is to not make a thing of it because in the Federation it would not be a thing. Then of course have episodes where's there bigoted societies and then boo-yah bring out the social commentary.

Yeah, the minute they start having them walk around with the big, neon arrow with "gay character" in it, it's over. 

 

But yeah, as Integral said; if they do a proper gay relationship?  I just hope they don't botch it. 

I'm gay. If I were a showrunner for Discovery I would tell my writers, "Ok fellas, here's our #1 rule when it comes to Mr. _______. The words "gay" or "homosexual" will never be spoken or included in any dialogue in this show. He's a character who will happen to have a boyfriend or male spouse, but it will be treated like all the others. By the 23rd century, it will be as topic-worthy as being left-handed. Ready? Ok, let's go write a series."

^
Exactly THIS. 

"Gay" or even homosexual seems like wording used to describe something outside the realm of a "normal" relationship.   Which to me, is a load of crap.   We love whom we love.  Gender is irrelevant.   I would like to see a same-sex fling/relationship receive no more of a raised eyebrow than Capt. Kirk's endless dalliances.  

Beyond did it PERFECTLY.

You just see Sulu scoop up (Demora?) and the three of them head off together, arms around each other.

What does Kirk do? Not turn to McCoy "Wow, I didn't know Sulu was gay? Did you know he was gay? That's so interesting that he's gay. It's totally cool that he's gay."

He just looks on, happy that one of his crew and one of his friends has a family and is happy as he watches them head off, same as it would be for any other crew member.

^ THIS is exactly what I tried to express with my convoluted statement that "Star Trek is about a colorblind future, but for a not-yet colorblind society". You expressed that much more eloquently, thank you for that!

It may be a real world statement to cast a role with a certain sexual orientation or ethnic origin, and it's done on purpose (which causes sceptics to call that "politically correct" or so), but I'd prefer if the literal message does not extend to the fictional universe. Within the ST universe, there is no need for any more statements. Things are solved already.

There was one instance on DS9 when that line was crossed: When Ben Sisko has reservations about the Vic Fontaine holo program, because of racial issues. I felt this feeling was misplaced. The real world message was extended to the fictional universe in that case. I didn't like that. Ben Sisko grew up in a world where skin color isn't any more relevant than eye color or hair color, and his ethnicities' struggle is ancient past -- so why would he take that personally, anymore than a 21st century person takes offense when it comes to medieval role playing, as medieval times were politically very incorrect on many levels? But Sisko acted in this episode, as if it was still near the present for him.

On a side note, I had to make a conscious effort recently remembering whether Sisko was a character of a kind of minority in Western context. Took me a few seconds before I connected his character to African Americans and their situation. THAT is how I'd like to think about characters on Star Trek. :) And I hope when they bring in gay characters, it will be the same for me.

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ THIS is exactly what I tried to express with my convoluted statement that "Star Trek is about a colorblind future, but for a not-yet colorblind society". You expressed that much more eloquently, thank you for that!

It may be a real world statement to cast a role with a certain sexual orientation or ethnic origin, and it's done on purpose (which causes sceptics to call that "politically correct" or so), but I'd prefer if the literal message does not extend to the fictional universe. Within the ST universe, there is no need for any more statements. Things are solved already.

There was one instance on DS9 when that line was crossed: When Ben Sisko has reservations about the Vic Fontaine holo program, because of racial issues. I felt this feeling was misplaced. The real world message was extended to the fictional universe in that case. I didn't like that. Ben Sisko grew up in a world where skin color isn't any more relevant than eye color or hair color, and his ethnicities' struggle is ancient past -- so why would he take that personally, anymore than a 21st century person takes offense when it comes to medieval role playing, as medieval times were politically very incorrect on many levels? But Sisko acted in this episode, as if it was still near the present for him.

On a side note, I had to make a conscious effort recently remembering whether Sisko was a character of a kind of minority in Western context. Took me a few seconds before I connected his character to African Americans and their situation. THAT is how I'd like to think about characters on Star Trek. :) And I hope when they bring in gay characters, it will be the same for me.

Yeah what Sisko said was a little out of place in the world of Star Trek, but he had a point about the historical context. Kassidy had an also equally valid counterpoint to.

How Star Trek: Beyond handled Sulu's character is something which ST: Discovery should emulate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gay. If I were a showrunner for Discovery I would tell my writers, "Ok fellas, here's our #1 rule when it comes to Mr. _______. The words "gay" or "homosexual" will never be spoken or included in any dialogue in this show. He's a character who will happen to have a boyfriend or male spouse, but it will be treated like all the others. By the 23rd century, it will be as topic-worthy as being left-handed. Ready? Ok, let's go write a series."

I would set it that way as well.

Every once in a while, a random person will notice "oh, you're left handed!" It never goes beyond that (how could it?), but I'm always surprised that people would take the time to comment on such a banal habit. That's clearly the way Star Trek, of all franchises, should have went with homosexuality a long time ago.

It's my understanding that the TNG episode where Riker falls for the "transgender" alien "female" was going to be the moment where Star Trek finally tackled homosexuality, but they decided it was too risky ( I.e., they got cold feet) and they  went ahead and just made her a normal female of sorts. 

PSA time!

The Outcast didn't really explore homosexuality at all, nor would it have if she was presented as less female-passing.  Soren identified as a woman, and Riker (presumably) identified as a man.  So any semblance of a relationship was heterosexual, until of course she was "cured" of her gender identity.

Describing her as she appeared as a "normal female of sorts".  I mean, isn't that a little insensitive?  What constitutes a "normal female" is entirely cultural, and any other definition seems as archaic as The Outcast.  I consider myself to be a "normal female" (well, as normal as a trekkie can be) and I am a trans woman.  I understand that there are definitions of "female" that do NOT include trans women, but any such definition is sorely lacking in the year 2016*.  A more sensitive/precise term for what people mean when they say "female" and are excluding trans women might be "cisgendered women" or "AFAB (assigned female at birth) women".

*And might I remind those who would say that the popular definition of female is a scientific one, and therefore infallible: the beauty of science (and of language!) is that it changes and adapts to our present understanding of the word.  To hold up one scientific world view as "god's will" and/or "objective" is antithetical to the scientific process, and is really just another form of dogmatic fundamentalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gay. If I were a showrunner for Discovery I would tell my writers, "Ok fellas, here's our #1 rule when it comes to Mr. _______. The words "gay" or "homosexual" will never be spoken or included in any dialogue in this show. He's a character who will happen to have a boyfriend or male spouse, but it will be treated like all the others. By the 23rd century, it will be as topic-worthy as being left-handed. Ready? Ok, let's go write a series."

I would set it that way as well.

Every once in a while, a random person will notice "oh, you're left handed!" It never goes beyond that (how could it?), but I'm always surprised that people would take the time to comment on such a banal habit. That's clearly the way Star Trek, of all franchises, should have went with homosexuality a long time ago.

It's my understanding that the TNG episode where Riker falls for the "transgender" alien "female" was going to be the moment where Star Trek finally tackled homosexuality, but they decided it was too risky ( I.e., they got cold feet) and they  went ahead and just made her a normal female of sorts. 

PSA time!

The Outcast didn't really explore homosexuality at all, nor would it have if she was presented as less female-passing.  Soren identified as a woman, and Riker (presumably) identified as a man.  So any semblance of a relationship was heterosexual, until of course she was "cured" of her gender identity.

Describing her as she appeared as a "normal female of sorts".  I mean, isn't that a little insensitive?  What constitutes a "normal female" is entirely cultural, and any other definition seems as archaic as The Outcast.  I consider myself to be a "normal female" (well, as normal as a trekkie can be) and I am a trans woman.  I understand that there are definitions of "female" that do NOT include trans women, but any such definition is sorely lacking in the year 2016*.  A more sensitive/precise term for what people mean when they say "female" and are excluding trans women might be "cisgendered women" or "AFAB (assigned female at birth) women".

*And might I remind those who would say that the popular definition of female is a scientific one, and therefore infallible: the beauty of science (and of language!) is that it changes and adapts to our present understanding of the word.  To hold up one scientific world view as "god's will" and/or "objective" is antithetical to the scientific process, and is really just another form of dogmatic fundamentalism.

^
Well said, doctor odd.  

And yes, the beauty of science is that it's flexible and open to new information that change long-held beliefs and established 'norms.'   A new ST might want to broaden the old TOS definition of 'male and female being universal constants' ("Metamorphosis") because in my lifetime it's been made plainly obvious that they are not the 'constants' they were once assumed to be.   I see gender and sexuality as a broad spectrum with many variations; not a fixed binary principle.  

Personally, I felt that TNG's "Outcast" was a whitewashed copout, but that's another subject. 

ST has always tried to be on the vanguard of pushing television boundaries; or, at least, it tried to be.    Discovery really needs to get back that certain something that none of the movies have ever really had; to speak BOLDLY on social issues.   To get ahead of the dialogue, and not come in late with a pile of excuses.  

I'm glad we finally got a main (and beloved) gay character in Star Trek, but it does seem like more than a day late and a few million dollars short...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gay. If I were a showrunner for Discovery I would tell my writers, "Ok fellas, here's our #1 rule when it comes to Mr. _______. The words "gay" or "homosexual" will never be spoken or included in any dialogue in this show. He's a character who will happen to have a boyfriend or male spouse, but it will be treated like all the others. By the 23rd century, it will be as topic-worthy as being left-handed. Ready? Ok, let's go write a series."

I would set it that way as well.

Every once in a while, a random person will notice "oh, you're left handed!" It never goes beyond that (how could it?), but I'm always surprised that people would take the time to comment on such a banal habit. That's clearly the way Star Trek, of all franchises, should have went with homosexuality a long time ago.

It's my understanding that the TNG episode where Riker falls for the "transgender" alien "female" was going to be the moment where Star Trek finally tackled homosexuality, but they decided it was too risky ( I.e., they got cold feet) and they  went ahead and just made her a normal female of sorts. 

PSA time!

The Outcast didn't really explore homosexuality at all, nor would it have if she was presented as less female-passing.  Soren identified as a woman, and Riker (presumably) identified as a man.  So any semblance of a relationship was heterosexual, until of course she was "cured" of her gender identity.

Describing her as she appeared as a "normal female of sorts".  I mean, isn't that a little insensitive?  What constitutes a "normal female" is entirely cultural, and any other definition seems as archaic as The Outcast.  I consider myself to be a "normal female" (well, as normal as a trekkie can be) and I am a trans woman.  I understand that there are definitions of "female" that do NOT include trans women, but any such definition is sorely lacking in the year 2016*.  A more sensitive/precise term for what people mean when they say "female" and are excluding trans women might be "cisgendered women" or "AFAB (assigned female at birth) women".

*And might I remind those who would say that the popular definition of female is a scientific one, and therefore infallible: the beauty of science (and of language!) is that it changes and adapts to our present understanding of the word.  To hold up one scientific world view as "god's will" and/or "objective" is antithetical to the scientific process, and is really just another form of dogmatic fundamentalism.

I'm gay. If I were a showrunner for Discovery I would tell my writers, "Ok fellas, here's our #1 rule when it comes to Mr. _______. The words "gay" or "homosexual" will never be spoken or included in any dialogue in this show. He's a character who will happen to have a boyfriend or male spouse, but it will be treated like all the others. By the 23rd century, it will be as topic-worthy as being left-handed. Ready? Ok, let's go write a series."

I would set it that way as well.

Every once in a while, a random person will notice "oh, you're left handed!" It never goes beyond that (how could it?), but I'm always surprised that people would take the time to comment on such a banal habit. That's clearly the way Star Trek, of all franchises, should have went with homosexuality a long time ago.

It's my understanding that the TNG episode where Riker falls for the "transgender" alien "female" was going to be the moment where Star Trek finally tackled homosexuality, but they decided it was too risky ( I.e., they got cold feet) and they  went ahead and just made her a normal female of sorts. 

PSA time!

The Outcast didn't really explore homosexuality at all, nor would it have if she was presented as less female-passing.  Soren identified as a woman, and Riker (presumably) identified as a man.  So any semblance of a relationship was heterosexual, until of course she was "cured" of her gender identity.

Describing her as she appeared as a "normal female of sorts".  I mean, isn't that a little insensitive?  What constitutes a "normal female" is entirely cultural, and any other definition seems as archaic as The Outcast.  I consider myself to be a "normal female" (well, as normal as a trekkie can be) and I am a trans woman.  I understand that there are definitions of "female" that do NOT include trans women, but any such definition is sorely lacking in the year 2016*.  A more sensitive/precise term for what people mean when they say "female" and are excluding trans women might be "cisgendered women" or "AFAB (assigned female at birth) women".

*And might I remind those who would say that the popular definition of female is a scientific one, and therefore infallible: the beauty of science (and of language!) is that it changes and adapts to our present understanding of the word.  To hold up one scientific world view as "god's will" and/or "objective" is antithetical to the scientific process, and is really just another form of dogmatic fundamentalism.

My apologies! Being in the gay community myself, I have trans friends and I'm always very careful to use the right terms if I can. When I put "normal female of sorts" it was more me struggling to remember what the alien really was as its been YEARS since I've seen it, hehe.  I guess my primary point was they were going to make that episode Star Trek's first "gay situation" but decided against it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My apologies! Being in the gay community myself, I have trans friends and I'm always very careful to use the right terms if I can. When I put "normal female of sorts" it was more me struggling to remember what the alien really was as its been YEARS since I've seen it, hehe.  I guess my primary point was they were going to make that episode Star Trek's first "gay situation" but decided against it. 

No worries!  Sorry if I was too preachy.  I had just woken up when I wrote that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll check out the new series.    

I normally prefer thee the TNG, DS9, and VOY eras (and beyond) but would be good to have some new trek series to fill the gap in the earlier years (between 2255-2364).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Kelvin had aliens (several that were visible onscreen, and that was in 2233.   Not to mention that the Denobulan Phlox served on the NX-01.  And T'Pol (technically) did not have a Starfleet rank (she held a Vulcan rank of sub commander), nor did she attend the academy, so Spock's record as "first Vulcan to enlist in Starfleet" is still technically unchanged.   

Just because Vulcans didn't (initially) mix well with humans doesn't mean other aliens couldn't.  

Leads to another interesting issue.  Given that one cannot reconcile Enterprise with the rest of the Star Trek universe, it's arguable that Enterprise also did not take place in the prime universe.  Perhaps the Abramsverse is more of a followup to the Enterprise universe, which was altered further by Nero.

Maybe the events of FC somehow changed things around enough.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone mentioned that highly inflated poll of from up to 20 percent or more LGBT. Gallop polls have over estimated the LGBT (all of the community) community based on major cities like SF where they are more prevalent. It's actually something like 5 percent, not up to 10 percent. I would say bisexual is something like 20 percent, because it seems more common. The Gallop poll likely did not take into account people who dabble, bisexuals, and others, such as furries, bears, Bronies, or whatnot, (although a furry or a Brony is not necessarily gay) and grouped all of them together. It makes the loud vocal members seem like there are more people that happen to go that route. In San Fran the population is probably upwards of 25 percent. LA and NY probably are also upwards of 20 percent. New England has a large polling group also and it includes NY and some other states where they're are a loud number. This is not a bad thing mind you.

Discovery has a Lt. Commander but is he or she in charge, or is he just first officer? I'd guess he or she is number one.

I thought the rumor about the female African American captain was just wishful thinking and not official at all, and that they had not even considered that actress the fans wanted.

I would prefer going into the future and doing that, but perhaps the 'anthology' feel will pick up next season in another era. That would be nice.

Fuller said it is definitely not Axanar and not Kobayashi Maru.

I don't know if there's enough material for A Private Little War, the prequel, but it's the only event that really stuck out around 2255. 

 

Edited by Chimera82405

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes heard the number of 5%-7% of the people being homosexual.

But I guess that doesn't take into account various other sexual preferences and identities, and the various different levels in between.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes heard the number of 5%-7% of the people being homosexual.

But I guess that doesn't take into account various other sexual preferences and identities, and the various different levels in between.

Or accounting for how many people who won't admit to being gay (even in clinical studies) in a society that treats differences of any kind so badly... :S

The Kelvin had aliens (several that were visible onscreen, and that was in 2233.   Not to mention that the Denobulan Phlox served on the NX-01.  And T'Pol (technically) did not have a Starfleet rank (she held a Vulcan rank of sub commander), nor did she attend the academy, so Spock's record as "first Vulcan to enlist in Starfleet" is still technically unchanged.   

Just because Vulcans didn't (initially) mix well with humans doesn't mean other aliens couldn't.  

Leads to another interesting issue.  Given that one cannot reconcile Enterprise with the rest of the Star Trek universe, it's arguable that Enterprise also did not take place in the prime universe.  Perhaps the Abramsverse is more of a followup to the Enterprise universe, which was altered further by Nero.

Maybe the events of FC somehow changed things around enough.

 

^
I've been championing that pet-theory for years.  I've always maintained that the NX-01 didn't exist prior to the events of the movie "First Contact" (otherwise it would've been on that wall of ships; or mentioned ANYWHERE else).  And ST Beyond does make brief mention of the Xindi attack in ENT, so it's possible that ST09's 'contamination' also stems back from the Ent-E's arrival in 2063.  

Nevertheless, Spock being the first commissioned officer in Starfleet still isn't challenged by the presence of T'Pol; who was a Vulcan 'advisor' from the Vulcan High Command, with a rank of subcommander.  Technically, she was not a Starfleet officer.  

But it was NEVER mentioned anywhere in TOS that Spock was the first alien to serve in Starfleet; just the first Vulcan.  So canon isn't contradicted by the presence of other alien species aboard the NX-01 or the Kelvin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you take into account fluidity and, as Vie has pointed out, honesty, I don't see 20% as that far out of the realm of possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes heard the number of 5%-7% of the people being homosexual.

But I guess that doesn't take into account various other sexual preferences and identities, and the various different levels in between.

Or accounting for how many people who won't admit to being gay (even in clinical studies) in a society that treats differences of any kind so badly... :S

 

 


I've been championing that pet-theory for years.  I've always maintained that the NX-01 didn't exist prior to the events of the movie "First Contact" (otherwise it would've been on that wall of ships; or mentioned ANYWHERE else).  And ST Beyond does make brief mention of the Xindi attack in ENT, so it's possible that ST09's 'contamination' also stems back from the Ent-E's arrival in 2063. 

Hmm, I dunno. There were a handful of Enterprises that were not on the ready room walls of either the Enterprise-D or -E. Regardless, Nero destroyed the Kelvin 45 years after the events of Enterprise so I can't see how that timeline change would "create" an Enterprise world that somehow doesn't exist in the Prime Universe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you take into account fluidity and, as Vie has pointed out, honesty, I don't see 20% as that far out of the realm of possibility.

I did. The whole community is probably up to 20 percent. The original comment referred to just those who were "gay", as in preferred the same sex, which is more like 5 percent. The whole community is probably closer to 20 percent, including bisexual and transgendered. They might even be including cross-dressers, who are not necessarily gay but just dress up. And they are probably grouping everyone together, which is not accurate.

Twenty percent would mean that out of 100 people, 20 of them are literally of that community. Maybe in the big cities and progressive areas this is so. It certainly is in the SF bay area. Some parts of SF are probably well over that.

Incidentally I am not picking on the SF Bay Area. I am from there.

Enterprise is in the Kelvin timeline and is seen in a model on the admiral's desk.

Did Kirk get with Carol in that timeline?

In the Kelvin timeline, the 5 year mission happens so much earlier than it did in the other, around 2260, when originally it started in 2265. Kirk skipped lieutenant and commander. That's kind of a mess he did that.

Edited by Chimera82405

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes heard the number of 5%-7% of the people being homosexual.

But I guess that doesn't take into account various other sexual preferences and identities, and the various different levels in between.

Or accounting for how many people who won't admit to being gay (even in clinical studies) in a society that treats differences of any kind so badly... :S

IIRC, the number of people not admitting being gay was already factored in in that estimation ...

But yeah, you never know. When I think of my rather liberal environment, I think 5%-10% are realistic.

 

And ST Beyond

does

make brief mention of the Xindi attack in ENT, so it's possible that ST09's 'contamination' also stems back from the Ent-E's arrival in 2063

And ST09 mentions "Admiral Archer's beagle". :)

Could be any Admiral Archer, though ...

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And ST Beyond

does

make brief mention of the Xindi attack in ENT, so it's possible that ST09's 'contamination' also stems back from the Ent-E's arrival in 2063

And ST09 mentions "Admiral Archer's beagle". :)

Could be any Admiral Archer, though ...

Ok, so I'm confused then. What assertion are you trying to make regarding the events of Enterprise as it fits into both universes? The assumption by everyone (including the studios) is that it is identical in both timelines because the change happened after the show takes place. 'splain Lucy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And ST Beyond

does

make brief mention of the Xindi attack in ENT, so it's possible that ST09's 'contamination' also stems back from the Ent-E's arrival in 2063

And ST09 mentions "Admiral Archer's beagle". :)

Could be any Admiral Archer, though ...

Ok, so I'm confused then. What assertion are you trying to make regarding the events of Enterprise as it fits into both universes? The assumption by everyone (including the studios) is that it is identical in both timelines because the change happened after the show takes place. 'splain Lucy!

I was just supporting Sehlat's view that there is a continuity between ENT and NuTrek.

My personal view is: Everything we see on screen is canon within the same universe, except NuTrek, which is in a timeline altered by Nero *after* ENT. Which means that for me, ENT, TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY are all in the same universe. When there are contradictions, it's either because we just didn't try hard enough to find reconciling explanations, or it's because they're just tv shows and the writing wasn't always consistent. :P

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And ST Beyond

does

make brief mention of the Xindi attack in ENT, so it's possible that ST09's 'contamination' also stems back from the Ent-E's arrival in 2063

And ST09 mentions "Admiral Archer's beagle". :)

Could be any Admiral Archer, though ...

Ok, so I'm confused then. What assertion are you trying to make regarding the events of Enterprise as it fits into both universes? The assumption by everyone (including the studios) is that it is identical in both timelines because the change happened after the show takes place. 'splain Lucy!

I was just supporting Sehlat's view that there is a continuity between ENT and NuTrek.

My personal view is: Everything we see on screen is canon within the same universe, except NuTrek, which is in a timeline altered by Nero *after* ENT. Which means that for me, ENT, TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY are all in the same universe. When there are contradictions, it's either because we just didn't try hard enough to find reconciling explanations, or it's because they're just tv shows and the writing wasn't always consistent. :P

^
Kind of this, but I believe that "First Contact" altered events from the 22nd century on.  
Who knows how many of those suddenly dead ground crew were important to future history?  What if someone killed the tech support guys who helped out Apollo 13 right before the flight of Apollo 11?  Not to mention that Lily Sloane didn't copilot the Phoenix as originally planned (wasn't history curious as to her the 'new' copilots were?), and Cochrane even made mention of the Borg incident in a commencement speech at Princeton some years later.   He was even told that a future starship would be called "Enterprise."

Frankly, I don't see how it could've NOT contaminated the timeline.   
And the Borg's early entry into the 22nd century further corrupted it up till Nero's incursion into 2233, which essentially split the already corrupted timeline into an even newer reality.   I'm guessing that much in the same way the Kelvin timeline is a divergence, the post-FC timeline divergence preceded it.   But the timeline was able to 'repair itself' enough after FC (I know; just go with it...) that certain 'time locked' events still happened.   But the Nero incursion changed those 'locked' events and created a new reality that no longer resembles the late 23rd or 24th centuries of the TOS movies or TNG timeline.

Cross-eyed yet?  :P :laugh:

I did a whole thread about this once; be damned if I can find it now when I need it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal view is: Everything we see on screen is canon within the same universe, except NuTrek, which is in a timeline altered by Nero *after* ENT. Which means that for me, ENT, TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY are all in the same universe. When there are contradictions, it's either because we just didn't try hard enough to find reconciling explanations, or it's because they're just tv shows and the writing wasn't always consistent. :P

And ST Beyond

does

make brief mention of the Xindi attack in ENT, so it's possible that ST09's 'contamination' also stems back from the Ent-E's arrival in 2063

And ST09 mentions "Admiral Archer's beagle". :)

Could be any Admiral Archer, though ...

Ok, so I'm confused then. What assertion are you trying to make regarding the events of Enterprise as it fits into both universes? The assumption by everyone (including the studios) is that it is identical in both timelines because the change happened after the show takes place. 'splain Lucy!

 

My personal view is: Everything we see on screen is canon within the same universe, except NuTrek, which is in a timeline altered by Nero *after* ENT. Which means that for me, ENT, TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY are all in the same universe. When there are contradictions, it's either because we just didn't try hard enough to find reconciling explanations, or it's because they're just tv shows and the writing wasn't always consistent. :P

 

And ST Beyond

does

make brief mention of the Xindi attack in ENT, so it's possible that ST09's 'contamination' also stems back from the Ent-E's arrival in 2063

And ST09 mentions "Admiral Archer's beagle". :)

Could be any Admiral Archer, though ...

Ok, so I'm confused then. What assertion are you trying to make regarding the events of Enterprise as it fits into both universes? The assumption by everyone (including the studios) is that it is identical in both timelines because the change happened after the show takes place. 'splain Lucy!

I was just supporting Sehlat's view that there is a continuity between ENT and NuTrek.

My personal view is: Everything we see on screen is canon within the same universe, except NuTrek, which is in a timeline altered by Nero *after* ENT. Which means that for me, ENT, TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY are all in the same universe. When there are contradictions, it's either because we just didn't try hard enough to find reconciling explanations, or it's because they're just tv shows and the writing wasn't always consistent. :P

My personal view is: Everything we see on screen is canon within the same universe, except NuTrek, which is in a timeline altered by Nero *after* ENT. Which means that for me, ENT, TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY are all in the same universe. When there are contradictions, it's either because we just didn't try hard enough to find reconciling explanations, or it's because they're just tv shows and the writing wasn't always consistent. :P

^
Kind of this, but I believe that "First Contact" altered events from the 22nd century on.  
Who knows how many of those suddenly dead ground crew were important to future history?  What if someone killed the tech support guys who helped out Apollo 13 right before the flight of Apollo 11?  Not to mention that Lily Sloane didn't copilot the Phoenix as originally planned (wasn't history curious as to her the 'new' copilots were?), and Cochrane even made mention of the Borg incident in a commencement speech at Princeton some years later.   He was even told that a future starship would be called "Enterprise."

Frankly, I don't see how it could've NOT contaminated the timeline.   
And the Borg's early entry into the 22nd century further corrupted it up till Nero's incursion into 2233, which essentially split the already corrupted timeline into an even newer reality.   I'm guessing that much in the same way the Kelvin timeline is a divergence, the post-FC timeline divergence preceded it.   But the timeline was able to 'repair itself' enough after FC (I know; just go with it...) that certain 'time locked' events still happened.   But the Nero incursion changed those 'locked' events and created a new reality that no longer resembles the late 23rd or 24th centuries of the TOS movies or TNG timeline.

Cross-eyed yet?  :P :laugh:

I did a whole thread about this once; be damned if I can find it now when I need it...

Kind of this, but I believe that "First Contact" altered events from the 22nd century on.

Both Old Spock and Nero came from the year 2387... they were a product of a First Contact event after Picard and Co. interfered with it, so that kind of rules out the notion of First Contact  changing much as far as I am concerned.

Beyond that, I think the new timeline and old timeline can absolutely share the same past up to a point. Doing stuff in the future won't change the past, so I don't see how Nero destroying the Kelvin when he did would have any effect on the events of Enterprise. Simply put, both variations of Kirk, Spock and company grew up having had Captain Archer command the NX-01 and had the adventures he did.

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