I hope ST Discovery gets cancelled before it damages the entire franchise.

So I took the 7 day free trial to check the show out. Glad I didn't keep the subscription. Wow, it's horrible. I hope Discovery gets cancelled before it damages the entire franchise. Other than a few nods to Star Trek there is NOTHING Star Trek about this travesty. And the acting is just terrible. I'm tempted to airlock any character I receive from this series just on principle. It makes Enterprise seem great now.

And really ... "MICHAEL"? I bet they thought they were being edgy instead of just stupid naming a female character that.

I did find it interesting to learn that Klingon's evolved from Orcs.
«1345

Comments

  • digitalspy.com/tv/star-trek-discovery/news/a839911/star-trek-discovery-airing-more-episodes-2017-cbs/
    With nine episodes of Star Trek: Discovery coming this year, that means just six episodes will make up the first season's second chapter, with CBS confirming they will still be premiering in January 2018.

    After that, it looks like we'll be in for a bit of a wait for the series' second season (if and when it gets a pick-up), with producer Alex Kurtzman hinting we may have to sit it out until at least 2019 before Discovery season two.
    Ten Forward Loungers - Give Your Best, Get Our Best!
    Check out our website to find out more:
    tenforwardloungers.freecluster.eu/
  • I feel very similar like the OP. Don't get me wrong, DIS is a fine show, just it just isn't ST. The only thing which remotely reminds on ST are the combadges. Because it calls itself ST it ofcourse has to be measured with the shows we know and love. And this is a difficult task....

    Foremost the moralcodex by the people are nothing we are used to know from ST. Of course Archer or Sisko made their shady decisions BUT those were one-timers. The moral codes of for example Cpt Lorca is inacceptable, he destroys a ship and says "it is only a ship", he and the crew jails the "monsters" to make their experiments. They also have the power to save Burnham from prision? Seperation of powers, anyone? This is as **** as the JJ plot was, where Kirk was sentenced to go to jail, because he cheated, but after a week he was given a command of the enterprise.

    The design looks way to futuristic for that timeframe. It would perfectly fit for a post Nemesis time, but for a pre-TOS time. No! Why did they make designelements like the roboter on the bridge or even the humans with those technical implantats. Seem to be very common in that universe. Nothing we have seen that often afterwards.

    So in the end I have to weighing up, do I watch/buy that new show only because it is labeled ST and knowing, if it fails we won't have a new show in the next decade - meaning accepting the low standard? I guess many people say "I accept". Better trashtrek than no trek.
  • Nerfball6Nerfball6 ✭✭✭
    edited October 7
    Well said qxqx, thoughI don't know that I agree that if this show fails it would mean no new Trek for some time. If it fails I think the reasons will be obvious, and a new show could learn from this mistake. Get rid of it fast so it will be forgotten and move on.
    This could be any SyFy channel show with Starfleet insignia on the uniforms. The best thing that could happen would be everyone stop watching and scream for a new show.
  • edited October 8
    qxqx wrote: »
    Foremost the moralcodex by the people are nothing we are used to know from ST. Of course Archer or Sisko made their shady decisions BUT those were one-timers.

    I think that there are examples from every captain, of every series of Star Trek, who made shady and questionable decisions from time to time. Some more so than others. I am curious how Archer and Sisko only made one each?
    Interesting, isn't it? The Federation claims to abhor Section 31's tactics, but when they need the dirty work done, they look the other way. It's a tidy little arrangement, wouldn't you say?
    – Odo, 2375 ("The Dogs of War")

    Morality is aspirational, it is a guideline to try to follow and a trajectory to aim for. In reality it's highly contextual, relativistic and messy. A perspective of moral absolutism is often simplistic and breaks down under scrutiny. Take for example a moral code of, "The good of the many, outweighs the good of the one". That's sounds great, yet I argue that it depends on context, and therefore is relative.
    In The Wrath of Khan (1982), Spock says, “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Captain Kirk answers, “Or the one.”

    If you take the position of a moral absolutist, then not only would you pull the lever, you'd also push the fat man, and remove a healthy persons organs to save even two others... (ref: http://justiceharvard.org/themoralsideofmurder/)

    In my view, some of the better episodes of Star Trek deal with that complexity of context and application. For another example, take the morality of the Prime Directive. In TNG there are several episodes which challenge the implications from an absolute and inflexible interpretation of the of the Prime Directive.
    As of Season 4 Episode 21 ("The Drumhead"), Picard had apparently incurred nine official violations of the Prime Directive since he took command of the Enterprise. Admiral Norah Satie makes this point during an official Starfleet interrogation of Picard.

    And this, from the Captain who is arguably the most representative of Starfleet morality and integrity. Straight from the main Star Trek site: Poll Says Captain With The Most Respect For The Prime Directive Is...

    All of which is to argue that moral dilemmas are most certainly a part of Star Trek, unless somehow DS9, TNG and TOS don't qualify. So when I watched the first episodes of DIS, what I saw were events unfolding that would challenge how to respond to an imminent and genocidal threat, while attempting to maintain those moral codes. As example of some of the morality in DIS:

    While under direct threat from that very same culture, she corrects the Admirals bigotry about race:
    Michael Burnham: With respect, it would be unwise to confuse race and culture.

    Even though she knew the danger and definitely understood the tactical disadvantage of not doing so:
    Philippa Georgiou: Starfleet doesn't fire first.

    That said, I share some reservations about the design, only in that I am curious how they will make a plausible transition to the look of TOS. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, as I am not quick to pitchfork, they might actually have a plan for that transition. Never underestimate the power of Space Hippies and retro style.
    We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy.
    Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
  • qxqxqxqx
    edited October 8
    qxqx wrote: »
    Foremost the moralcodex by the people are nothing we are used to know from ST. Of course Archer or Sisko made their shady decisions BUT those were one-timers.

    I think that there are examples from every captain, of every series of Star Trek, who made shady and questionable decisions from time to time. Some more so than others. I am curious how Archer and Sisko only made one each?

    (...)

    Interesting, I'll explain a little further on that topic:

    (a) The whole DIS show starts with very questionable example of morally views and stances. The difference between Sisko (In "In the Pale moonlight" for example) and this is, Sisko was well set and the audience knew him and his stances. What he would do and why, so we were able to classify his actions. In contrast to that, we know nothing about Cpt. Lorca and his crew, the only thing we know is they can do what they want, they jail some lifeforms and experiment on them and overall the whole setting of the discovery ship is arranged to act illegally/unethically in a big shape. I mean they have prisons especially build next to a laboratory. That must have been planned. There were people who build that stuff. Nobody questioned that all? The same is true with the laboratory next to the machine room. The whole thing is set up to act illegal or unmorally in a big scale.

    (b) Your examples are all true. The big difference is, in the "original" ST we have a ratio of 1% ethical problematic and 99% ethical flawless actions. In DIS it is reverse (so far).

    So the combination of (a) and (b) makes the case so problematical. Furthermore, to say "the end justifies the means" is nothing I want to see in ST on a big scale. ST was always a mostly ethical acting instance which came up with clever ways to solve problems, especially when the watcher would have act differently in the first moment. Answering violence with counter-violence is not the way I want to see ST.

    Of course I understand why the show goes this direction. The reasons are, with war and violence the producers can create tension, action and use much CGI. They sacrificed the original values to it. If they had made DIS like TNG with to much discussion etc there would have been to less space for CGI. Maybe nowadays audiences are also to dumb to follow a "complex" show like TNG. I don't know. But I can barely see how DIS fits into the ST franchise.


    That leads me to the next problem. Other ST made me think of things. DIS just wants me to consume and repeat their dumb messages. No more independent thinking required.


    This above can be corrected somehow, but a equal big problem is, how DIS treats "white trash" (white men). I always saw ST as a personal vision of a desirable future. Since I was a kid. I loved and shared that visions. But telling me the only white man we have seen are
    • a whiny Lt who got killed because he can't find his way to the sickbay
    • a "bigot" (like you said) Admiral, whose dumb decisions costs the life of his crew
    • and the shady Cpt. Lorca
    insults me. The show tells me literally that there are no more fellows (which share my gender and skincolor) needed in future? I cannot identify with it anymore. Normally I wouldn't care. But that is so obviously a "political correctness" issue which cannot be overseen. ST turns out that the most important and foremost lessons they want to teach us is to be political correct, where I should stop thinking independently and just take and repeat what they want me to think. The others shows made me think, in contrast.

    I just ask, that I can still identify me with my beloved franchise, which went with me my whole life. The ST message and vision was always very important to me. I see it damaged.

    So in the end there are so many problems with this DIS show.... It violates what I and many loved in ST. DIS would be way better if it wouldn't be labeled as ST.
  • Sarek is a white man...
  • Dragen wrote: »
    Sarek is a white man...

    He is not
  • qxqx wrote: »
    The show tells me literally that there are no more fellows (which share my gender and skincolor) needed in future? I cannot identify with it anymore.

    It tells you that every single sort of human (no matter their gender and skin colour) is needed in the future. It invites you to identify with every sort of human, no matter their gender and skin colour, out of our common humanity.

    Hell, Star Trek has always invited you to identify with the other. It made me identify with a literal green-bloodied alien, with an android, with a sentient bucket of goo, with a computer program. What can I say? After having felt kinship for a sentient bucket of goo, feeling kinship for a black woman, or a hoofed thin alien giant, is rather easy.


    At least, that's what Star Trek told me.


    By the way, I could point out the obvious person missing from your list of white dudes. You know, the brilliant scientist who openly despises the war and warmongering in general. He is as white and as blonde as he can be, and the moral balance to Lorca's ruthless war ethics.

    Unless your problem with Stamets is... the predictably and disappointingly obvious one.
    "Dance with me. For science."
  • qxqx wrote: »
    The show tells me literally that there are no more fellows (which share my gender and skincolor) needed in future? I cannot identify with it anymore.

    It tells you that every single sort of human (no matter their gender and skin colour) is needed in the future. It invites you to identify with every sort of human, no matter their gender and skin colour, out of our common humanity.

    Hell, Star Trek has always invited you to identify with the other. It made me identify with a literal green-bloodied alien, with an android, with a sentient bucket of goo, with a computer program. What can I say? After having felt kinship for a sentient bucket of goo, feeling kinship for a black woman, or a hoofed thin alien giant, is rather easy.


    At least, that's what Star Trek told me.


    By the way, I could point out the obvious person missing from your list of white dudes. You know, the brilliant scientist who openly despises the war and warmongering in general. He is as white and as blonde as he can be, and the moral balance to Lorca's ruthless war ethics.

    Unless your problem with Stamets is... the predictably and disappointingly obvious one.

    I'm glad that you can identify yourself with a bucket of goo. I cannot. The issue is that mentioned group is way to underrepresented. Why do they want to tell us there are no more persons of that group on a ship anymore? That questions leads me to the text I wrote. What gives to have such a setup, what do they want to accomplish? I could identify me the same way with a black woman, even though there were more of said group. So that isn't really an argument. As you said you identified yourself with Odo, that show hasn't the mentioned issue. So why don't set it up in a fair and realistic way? I don't see an argument for it? Why totally exclude the said group?
  • Wow uncensored criticism for STD. I would have thought anything other than "STD is great" would be deleted or flagged as "abuse". The problem with STD is it goes out of it's way to be "edgy" with things like naming the female lead "Michael". Its almost like they are trying to appeal to the super leftist hipster SJW crowd that is tolerant of all except white straight men. The problem with the show is those of us who grew up with TNG, DS9, and Voyager want our Star Trek to resemble STAR TREK. I use to be able to identify with Star Trek but now I feel like unless Im a ultra leftist hipster I cannot. Star Trek has always been about diversity, black, white, asian, alien, and other, and all of them worked together; however, this is more like black, asian, alien, and make sure there are no white straight males or it will upset people. The people who make STD are the same kind of people who would see no issue with casting Batman as a black woman, and if you said "what about continuity?" you would get labeled as a racist. The ironic thing is those very people don't realize I had the same issue with Green Lantern in the newest movie because the actor was white but I have always known Green Lantern as a black man in the comics. Before anyone comments how racist I am I should mention I am a straight male but Im not white.

    I've airlocked all the STD crew I've received on principal since they aren't Star Trek cards. I don't want First Officer Sheldon Alien or the Orc.
  • qxqx wrote: »
    Why totally exclude the said group?

    I find it funny that you still haven't acknowledged the existence of Stamets, easily the whitest of the whole bunch.

    I'd swear you want to feel offended by the casting, and that you're purposefully ignoring all the white male cast - first and foremost, Lorca and Stamets - just in order to justify your indignation.


    But never mind. I was curious to see your arguments. My curiosity is fully satisfied.
    "Dance with me. For science."
  • qxqxqxqx
    edited October 8
    @Astrometrics:

    What? You missed some important points of my text, like
    qxqx wrote: »
    (...) But telling me the only white man we have seen are
    • a whiny Lt who got killed because he can't find his way to the sickbay
    • a "bigot" (like you said) Admiral, whose dumb decisions costs the life of his crew
    • and the shady Cpt. Lorca
    insults me. (...)

    For example. What have you missed else? Grated, as a non-native speaker I perhaps wasn't that eloquent like other people in this thread were. But beside that, I said that the group was underrepresented. Adding Stements to that group doesn't really change that fact, don't you think so as well?

    I repeat: The problem of DIS is not just one thing which is outweighed by the many good things. The problem is more that almost everything is not in line with the ST I know. It *may* be a good SCIFI, it just isn't ST.
  • qxqx wrote: »


    I'd swear you want to feel offended by the casting

    This is extremely ironic. Typically the people who defend STD and other shows like it for casting find offense everywhere and are more sensitive than a German car. Everything to these people is either "offensive" or "misogynistic" while heterosexual misandry runs rampant and is the consistent theme of everything they say.
  • I'd like to suggest that perhaps part of what could be reevaluated is the whole concept of identity which is then used as the criteria in order to identify with someone.

    In terms of identity, I find that most people usually to base their primary identity on things which are are both differentiated and derivative rather than common and foundational. This inherently creates conflict and misperception, and has wrought havoc throughout time and enabled much bigotry and othering. Until we, each of us, drop those labels, the various forms of discrimination and all that follows from it will continue.
    “The atoms of our bodies are traceable to stars that manufactured them in their cores and exploded these enriched ingredients across our galaxy, billions of years ago. For this reason, we are biologically connected to every other living thing in the world. We are chemically connected to all molecules on Earth. And we are atomically connected to all atoms in the universe. We are not figuratively, but literally stardust.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    So that seems to me to be a good place to start. Who am I? I am stardust. I am stardust that happened to arise to consciousness on the planet known as Earth, in the form of a human being, at some time in history, in some place, to some parents, with some gender, with some sexual orientation, within some culture.

    So what, as stardust, do I identify with? Everything? Well, yes and not exactly. It is that second item not necessarily what I am made of (stardust), but what has emerged from it (consciousness) which I find to be central to what I identify as and with. So I am some mote of consciousness, made of stardust, living on Earth. Which is to say, that I consider myself a cosmic citizen and that is not only my primary identity, but also an identity which I have in common with basically everyone else.
    "The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be." - Carl Sagan

    In terms of the casting, from this perspective, what I see is a cast of humans, some of whom are pretending to be aliens. All of whom are playing roles in a story. Wouldn't it be more important how well they are acting, the ideas and emotions that they are conveying, the story that is being told, versus the particular kind of human they happen to be?

    If I go to bike mechanic, to fix my bike, I have never once had any concern what kind of human they happened to be, and I wouldn't care if they were a sentient robot, alien, or a self-aware bit of belly button lint which somehow managed to telekinetically repair bikes. All that matters is their competency in the task at hand, if they are going to charge me a fair price for the work, and hopefully be interesting and/or pleasant to interact with.

    Which is to say, it is completely understandable to have qualms with the story, the various actors acting ability, the design work and what not, but the actors gender? Their skin color? That's discrimination, that's bigotry.
    "...will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    So, for me, I identify more with the ideas someone expresses, how they choose to live and treat others. I respect skill, intelligence and competency wherever it is to be found. Those are some of the things which are important to me and relevant to weather or not I identify with someone. As for their gender, skin color, sexual orientation... how is that important, when we have so much of our history which informs us of how unimportant (nondeterministic) and dangerous an over emphasis on those kinds of differences are?

    Not being able to identify with someone based solely on their similarity to you? Maybe it would be useful to question why you see yourself as meaningfully different in the first place, and what that meaning is based on.
    We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy.
    Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
  • (...)
    So, for me, I identify more with the ideas someone expresses, how they choose to live and treat others. I respect skill, intelligence and competency wherever it is to be found. Those are some of the things which are important to me and relevant to weather or not I identify with someone. As for their gender, skin color, sexual orientation... how is that important, when we have so much of our history which informs us of how unimportant (nondeterministic) and dangerous an over emphasis on those kinds of differences are?

    Not being able to identify with someone based solely on their similarity to you? Maybe it would be useful to question why you see yourself as meaningfully different in the first place, and what that meaning is based on.

    Well written. As I do. But some DIS producer seem to think different than us. They don't seem to value to show the intelligence or competency in first place, they rather want to show us the " gender, skin color, sexual orientation" stuff in the first place. In the end, I guess we all totally agree that the producers did a sh** job with overweighting the gender stuff way to much in contrast to focusing on competence in terms of solving morally problems or technical issues.
  • qxqx wrote: »
    ...They don't seem to value to show the intelligence or competency in first place, they rather want to show us the " gender, skin color, sexual orientation" stuff in the first place. In the end, I guess we all totally agree that the producers did a sh** job with overweighting the gender stuff way to much in contrast to focusing on competence in terms of solving morally problems or technical issues.

    I actually don't agree with that part of your statement specifically, and I certainly disagree with a lot of what you have written in this thread. So I will take exception to the claim of "we all totally agree". I didn't perceive any "overweighting the gender stuff". Why and how do you think it is overweighted?
    qxqx wrote: »
    I just ask, that I can still identify me with my beloved franchise, which went with me my whole life. The ST message and vision was always very important to me. I see it damaged.

    Maybe I don't understand your point, but you seem to have stated that you cannot identify with DIS because of a "totally excluded group". Given that you quoted and bolded that part of my post, it seems that you agree with the notion that gender, skin color, sexual orientation are unimportant. So who exactly is excluded?

    What exactly is the message and vision which is being damaged? Three, maybe four episodes in and you are confident in condemning the whole series?
    qxqx wrote: »
    The show tells me literally that there are no more fellows (which share my gender and skincolor) needed in future? I cannot identify with it anymore.

    Another point of confusion, "fellows" here is explicitly stated to be a function of "share my gender and skincolor", so how exactly does that follow with any agreement of identifying more with someones ideas?

    We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy.
    Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
  • Lady GaghgaghLady Gaghgagh ✭✭✭
    edited October 9
    This thread went from valid criticisms of the huge faux-pas of Discovery to some serious nitpicking. And I'll lay it out here, I am someone very unfond of over-political correctness and I scrutinize it often because I value substance over quantity. To me, the race of the cast is a non-issue entirely, as is the unlikeability of some of the white guys in the show because the majority of the characters are unlikeable and I wouldn't be broken-hearted one bit if any of them died (except Georgiou, she seemed like the only promising character regarding Trekness).

    My biggest issues with the show are...
    ----It is not Trek to me, there are no Trek values whatsoever, no push for exploration, no push for humanitarian mindsets, no concern for welfare, and no allianceship or camaraderie.
    ----The acting as others have mentioned, is atrocious. But, only insofar as the writing is so rigid it makes the characters entirely unlikeable and boring, which reflects in the acting since there are only so many ways a group of actors can make the stick-in-the-butt character trope fun or engaging.
    ----These are not Klingons. They have no honour, they have no spirit, no revelry, no vigour. They have nothing in common with the established Klingons except bloodlust (which the established Klingons have a limit to) and language. In these warriors does not beat the heart of a Klingon.
    ----Every episode is dry as bone, there's no humour, no kindness, no light, no joy, no humanity. Everyone is an æsshole, everyone is so tense they're always at the edge of snapping. I miss my nice balance of dark elements and lightheartedness.

    Now let me say another thing, maybe Discovery is trying to specifically explore the darkside of humanity from a Starfleet background. And if so, that could be good storytelling. It would be interesting to see darker stories of Starfleet captains and crew who succumb to faulty morals and unethical practices.
    For example, if we had a spin-off from Voyager of the Equinox crew, where we got to see just how they managed to become so inured to rulebreaking, deceit, and unethical behaviours. Like I said, if Discovery is trying to explore this side to people in Starfleet, yes that would be interesting.

    But...DIS has made its characters entirely unlikeable from the get-go. Even with the morally bankrupt Equinox crew, I found humour in some of the characters, and seeing Cpt. Ransom whisk himself away to that holoviewer of Earth beaches, still made him relatable. He still felt human.
    So far, the only characters which are remotely likeable are Georgiou (who seemed the most like pre-established Trek), Saru (who is still bland but could be promising), and Tilly (obnoxious, flat, fails at being the comic relief but maybe she'll grow into it).

    And I think that's Discovery's biggest flaw: it has made itself entirely unrelatable in almost every aspect.
    It is unrelatable with its characters' personalities as well as with the Trek franchise itself - Trek's tenets, timeline, and lore.

    Every episode of Discovery I have seen so far, I get bored barely a few minutes in, because the pace has not changed one iota. I know what I'm going to get and it is all going to be the same unrelatable drivel it has been.
    ----The characters are going to continue being tightassed inconsiderate rude people - remember when a Starfleet ship was a place where people were glad to work alongside one another? Where people did their duties out of respect, not always obligation or fear or shaming? Where friendly banter existed between colleagues as well as even the captain?
    ----The characters are going to continue making morally questionable choices - remember when Starfleet officers actually stopped and thought before making choices which could cause harm to anyone or thing? Where SF officers knew that there was always another method besides violence and force?
    ----And the story is going to continue being disassociated from established Trek timelines and lore with its over-amped technology and its non-Klingon Klingons - remember how tightly-knit Enterprise and Voyager's established franchises had to weave delicately around and together with the established Star Trek lore? And despite that and even though it was probably hard to write as best as possible to avoid plotholes and continuity errors, the writers still for the most part pulled it off?

    I miss all that so much.
    Discovery, and I never have expressed this type of opinion lightly, is utter trash and a disgrace to everything Star Trek has built for 50 years. It is not canon to me and it can't be unless it seriously does better and actually tries to follow Trek lore and what the franchise has gloriously and beautifully given us for the past half-century.
  • Well I am livid, I just wrote out a huge well-thought out comment about Discovery and how and why it disappoints me and poof I accidentally deleted it somehow.
  • Lady GaghgaghLady Gaghgagh ✭✭✭
    edited October 9
    I guess if I had to summarize my blunder of a deleted comment, it'd be...
    Any problems with the race of the characters or the fact that all of the white guy characters so far have been æssholes, is just nitpicking to me. Why? Because the race is a non-issue, and in reality all of the characters are æssholes, not just the white guys. And this is an opinion coming from someone who really dislikes overly poltically correct measures because I find it values quantity at the expense of substance.

    STD (yes I will call it that from now on for how disappointing the series is) has much bigger faux-pas which are the real issue here.
    --This is not Trek: there is no value for exploration, welfare, camaraderie, or humanitarianism.
    --In these "Klingons" does not beat the heart of a Klingon from all the established Trek lore we have. They have no honour, no joy, no revelry, no poeticism, no vivacity, only bloodlust.
    --There is no respect for the established Trek timeline or lore.
    --The characters are massively unethical and act without ever thinking through the situation, it is always violence or force which is the answer in this series. That is entirely un-Star Trek, which values the exploration of all of the options and always seeks the one with the least damage, collateral damage, and most likely to be beneficial for all involved.

    While maybe the STD writers want to explore the darker side of Starfleet officers, and this is a fascinating road to travel, they do it horribly by making every character unlikeable entirely from the beginning.
    For example, if we had a spin-off from Voyager of the Equinox crew and got to explore how they became so inured to violence, deceit, and unethical behaviours, that would be very intriguing! The thing the Equinoxers have going for them though is when we got introduced to them, they were relatable and likeable to an extent. Some of the crew were lighthearted and just getting to see Captain Ransom whisk himself away with a holoviewer to Earth's beaches reminded us that he was still human in some capacity.
    None of the STD characters have even that, they are all so uptight and so serious, the only likeable and most pre-established Trek-like character died already (Georgiou), and Saru and Tilly are still too flat to like yet, even though they are the only ones who show any semblance of promise.

    Remember when a ship's crew could get along and were happy to work alongside one another? When they did their duties out of respect for the job instead of a feeling of obligation, fear, or shame? When the crew were able to have friendly banter amongst colleagues and even at times with the captain? When we got to see the crew's lives in depth and even outside of duty time?

    Remember when even though the Voyager and Enterprise series were written after 3 heavily established series (TOS, TNG, DS9), that writers still tried their best and for the most part succeeded in staying respectful to the established lore and timeline?

    The biggest faux-pas of all with Discovery is that nothing is relatable. The characters are unrelatable. But most of all, the series is unrelatable to the Star Trek franchise - it doesn't respect lore or the timeline.

    Personally, it is not canon to me and will remain some sci-fi series which is not Trek but just happens to have been given the Star Trek name, unless the writers really put some serious effort into making the show actually relatable to what Star Trek really is. (That said, I am collecting a few of the STD characters because of usefulness and my collectionist nature).
  • I put it simple and hope for a lot more Seasons to come.

    Like the Show and it is absolutly part of Star Trek for me so far.
    Live long and prosper.
    Not a Native English speaker - be lenient toward me
  • qxqxqxqx
    edited October 9
    qxqx wrote: »
    ...They don't seem to value to show the intelligence or competency in first place, they rather want to show us the " gender, skin color, sexual orientation" stuff in the first place. In the end, I guess we all totally agree that the producers did a sh** job with overweighting the gender stuff way to much in contrast to focusing on competence in terms of solving morally problems or technical issues.

    I actually don't agree with that part of your statement specifically, and I certainly disagree with a lot of what you have written in this thread. So I will take exception to the claim of "we all totally agree". I didn't perceive any "overweighting the gender stuff". Why and how do you think it is overweighted?
    qxqx wrote: »
    I just ask, that I can still identify me with my beloved franchise, which went with me my whole life. The ST message and vision was always very important to me. I see it damaged.

    Maybe I don't understand your point, but you seem to have stated that you cannot identify with DIS because of a "totally excluded group". Given that you quoted and bolded that part of my post, it seems that you agree with the notion that gender, skin color, sexual orientation are unimportant. So who exactly is excluded?

    What exactly is the message and vision which is being damaged? Three, maybe four episodes in and you are confident in condemning the whole series?
    qxqx wrote: »
    The show tells me literally that there are no more fellows (which share my gender and skincolor) needed in future? I cannot identify with it anymore.

    Another point of confusion, "fellows" here is explicitly stated to be a function of "share my gender and skincolor", so how exactly does that follow with any agreement of identifying more with someones ideas?

    Oh, that disappoints me a little bit. But thank you for pushing this further that I can be more specific.

    I thought we would all agree in the end. I want to make an analogy to make it clearer. Suppose we have a thread with an upvote/downvote function consisting of 5 persons. If you don't like an opinion one persons describes, you can either downvote him specifically or you can upvote all others excluding him. That comes to the same result. DIS makes the same, they don't explicit "downvote" that said group, but they do it implicite by "upvoting" all others, which comes to the same result. It sounds you find that "gender stuff" good, but isn't it based on the equality idea? How can equality reached if it isn't actually, by excluding a certain group again?

    For me it should be normal that woman etc are among the crew, not necessary to rub it in and show me actually the opposite of the "equality" idea. If people think equality can be reached by discriminating a group again, well I won't go with them.
    Why and how do you think it is overweighted?
    Furthermore, that "gender stuff" was just ONE single point, by talking so much about it, that topic gets a little exaggerated and thus overweighted. The other points which were mentioned are even more important. The whole combination of them makes DIS a questionable show.

    I hope I was more clear this time. IF equality is normal in the future, show it. Don't exclude groups again. IF for example "black women" (just to name a random group, because it is a group among gender freaks, not by me, I personally don't even see a difference) felt underrepresented in the past and felt terrible about it. Why do they exactly want others to feel the same way now? IF people think "black women" were right in the past about their sentiments, then the principle of Induction teaches us, that it is not okay by just replacing that $group. At least not as long people want to punish me for things I personally have never done. I never discriminated another group. Don't take me because of my race etc into account for things I've never done.
    To conclude this. The whole intellectual world of the gender freaks leads not to equality, it leads to more segmentation and building of groups, which leads to more frustration and bad blood. So in the end, by showing their ideas in DIS it leads to an environment and a sentiment which is hostile and doesn't match up with the standards we know from ST.

    Show all "groups" and show their respective procentual share. Telling us there are no more white men is just stupid and unrealistic and even more unnecessary.

    I guess the argumentative circle closes here.
  • qxqx, I am sorry but you are so off the rails, it is not funny.

    The gender and race topics are not overweighted whatsoever. I really really don't get where you are pulling this idea from. The topic of any of the characters' genders has not come up once in the show, at all! While some people advertising the show have made it a point to talk about it, that isn't being reflected as a topic in the show itself. So if that is the issue, then the issue is with the marketing of the show, not the actual gender representation of the characters.

    So far, there has also not been any hostility written into the show's story about white people, or white men in particular. You are reading far into something that is not even there. I suggest you really take a step back for a bit, because this is getting almost conspiracist with how you are being about this.

    As for the topic of race, it too has not really been a topic in the show. It got mentioned only once and in a passing comment in the opening two episodes about Burnham's seeming prejudice against Klingons. Again, while the publicity team for the show have mentioned their pride at being racially inclusive, once again this has not actually been a discussion in the show itself.

    I think you're just using Discovery as a soapbox to launch off of because you don't like the series as is anyway. I get it, I also don't like the series, but I'm not going to soapbox anything not actually related to the show's progression story-wise. To me, that is a lost cause for discussion.
  • qxqxqxqx
    edited October 9
    qxqx, I am sorry but you are so off the rails, it is not funny.

    The gender and race topics are not overweighted whatsoever. I really really don't get where you are pulling this idea from. The topic of any of the characters' genders has not come up once in the show, at all! While some people advertising the show have made it a point to talk about it, that isn't being reflected as a topic in the show itself. So if that is the issue, then the issue is with the marketing of the show, not the actual gender representation of the characters.

    So far, there has also not been any hostility written into the show's story about white people, or white men in particular. You are reading far into something that is not even there. I suggest you really take a step back for a bit, because this is getting almost conspiracist with how you are being about this.

    As for the topic of race, it too has not really been a topic in the show. It got mentioned only once and in a passing comment in the opening two episodes about Burnham's seeming prejudice against Klingons. Again, while the publicity team for the show have mentioned their pride at being racially inclusive, once again this has not actually been a discussion in the show itself.

    I think you're just using Discovery as a soapbox to launch off of because you don't like the series as is anyway. I get it, I also don't like the series, but I'm not going to soapbox anything not actually related to the show's progression story-wise. To me, that is a lost cause for discussion.

    First, thank you for your feedback. It is always wanted and welcome, it enables me to reflect my own views.

    I don't think this is way off, what would you say your well written critique (the prior post) is way off (Btw, you repeated most parts from my post, read here)? I can imagine others don't agree with what you have written too. Only because it is way off for you, it might be valuable for others. At least I said, that whole "gender topic" became overweighted because we talked to much about it, but if people (like Xoiiku) decide that they want to debate about that specific point and take their time to write a post, I guess I owe them the same and answer in a verbose manner, don't you think so too? After all this is a discussion board.

    And that there ARE gender related issues is unarguable. Many persons here see them as well, let alone many persons in the fandom in the countless other discussion boards etc.
    The gender and race topics are not overweighted whatsoever. I really really don't get where you are pulling this idea from.
    Yes they are, just because we are talking that much about it here while neglect the other aspects. I described it in the last post.

    Accusing me to just use ST or DIS as a soapbox.... is somehow not legit. After all we all use ST as an discussion anchor, that is this board all about.
    So if you want to discuss specific statements where you disagree, I'd be glad to argue about them. I haven't said that I may be necessarily right about all topics or specificas. But that is the very reason why we all write here, no? We want to learn in general and maybe learn new points of views. That only can be accomplished by refering to specific points (citing) and comprehensible argue about them. At least that is the scientific approach which I prefer.
  • Unfortunately I really had a hard time understanding your response to me. I know English is not your native language though. But, it was still very difficult to understand.

    You did ask for a specific, so I will address one.
    qxqx wrote: »
    Show all "groups" and show their respective procentual share. Telling us there are no more white men is just stupid and unrealistic and even more unnecessary.

    First off, let me state that I push for percentage accuracies. Since that is what I think you mean by "procentual share". It was a little hard to be sure, since procentual is not an actual English word.
    Anyway, while percentage accuracy is something I do push for, it is also something that I don't think should be strictly defining or limiting.

    You say that "telling us there are no more white men" presuming you mean in the Discovery universe or Discovery's Starfleet, "is just stupid and unrealistic and even more unnecessary". And I would agree. However, that's not what is shown in Discovery's universe or Discovery's Starfleet at all.

    To be particular, let's break down the characters we have who have shown to be relatively major characters...
    -Stamets = white male
    -Lorca = white male
    -Tilly = white female
    -Landry = racially ambiguous, but I'm going to go on a limb here and say white female
    -Burnham = black female
    -Saru = alien male
    -Georgiou = asian female
    -T'Kuvma = alien male
    -Koq = alien male
    -Culber = racially ambiguous, but likely latino male

    So already we have some white men, which breaks the idea of there not being any. Now let's get down to the percentages,. To do so, we will need to take the aliens off the table because aliens have no relation to human racial composition due to not being the same species.

    So that leaves us with 4 white people (2 male, 2 female), 1 asian person (female), 1 black person (female), and 1 latino person (male). So that is 50% white, 50% non-white. If we mean only white males as seems to be your concern, then we have 25% white males, 75% other, which is still understandable for a highly diverse space-faring universe. However if you take into account the fact that Georgiou is dead and so is *SPOILER AHEAD* Landry, then now we have 66~% white people, 33~% non-white people, and in particular, 33~% white men, 66~% other. Still completely viable representational percentages on a Starfleet ship.

    So with the percentages in place, I still am not seeing any truth in your statement that Discovery is giving its viewers a message that "there are no more white men".

  • Unfortunately I really had a hard time understanding your response to me. I know English is not your native language though. But, it was still very difficult to understand.

    You did ask for a specific, so I will address one.
    qxqx wrote: »
    Show all "groups" and show their respective procentual share. Telling us there are no more white men is just stupid and unrealistic and even more unnecessary.

    First off, let me state that I push for percentage accuracies. Since that is what I think you mean by "procentual share". It was a little hard to be sure, since procentual is not an actual English word.
    Anyway, while percentage accuracy is something I do push for, it is also something that I don't think should be strictly defining or limiting.

    You say that "telling us there are no more white men" presuming you mean in the Discovery universe or Discovery's Starfleet, "is just stupid and unrealistic and even more unnecessary". And I would agree. However, that's not what is shown in Discovery's universe or Discovery's Starfleet at all.

    To be particular, let's break down the characters we have who have shown to be relatively major characters...
    -Stamets = white male
    -Lorca = white male
    -Tilly = white female
    -Landry = racially ambiguous, but I'm going to go on a limb here and say white female
    -Burnham = black female
    -Saru = alien male
    -Georgiou = asian female
    -T'Kuvma = alien male
    -Koq = alien male
    -Culber = racially ambiguous, but likely latino male

    So already we have some white men, which breaks the idea of there not being any. Now let's get down to the percentages,. To do so, we will need to take the aliens off the table because aliens have no relation to human racial composition due to not being the same species.

    So that leaves us with 4 white people (2 male, 2 female), 1 asian person (female), 1 black person (female), and 1 latino person (male). So that is 50% white, 50% non-white. If we mean only white males as seems to be your concern, then we have 25% white males, 75% other, which is still understandable for a highly diverse space-faring universe. However if you take into account the fact that Georgiou is dead and so is *SPOILER AHEAD* Landry, then now we have 50% white people, 50% non-white people (no change here), but in particular, 33~% white men, 66~% other. Still completely viable representational percentages on a Starfleet ship.

    So with the percentages in place, I still am not seeing any truth in your statement that Discovery is giving its viewers a message that "there are no more white men".


    PS: DB STOP ERASING MY COMMENT EDITS AND SAYING I HAVE TO WAIT FOR APPROVAL!!! MY FIRST COMMENT TO THIS THREAD STILL HASN'T SHOWN UP, SO I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO WAIT BEFORE CONTRIBUTING/EDITING MY CONTRIBUTION TO ANY DISCUSSION!!!
  • Unfortunately I really had a hard time understanding your response to me. I know English is not your native language though. But, it was still very difficult to understand.

    You did ask for a specific, so I will address one.
    qxqx wrote: »
    Show all "groups" and show their respective procentual share. Telling us there are no more white men is just stupid and unrealistic and even more unnecessary.

    First off, let me state that I push for percentage accuracies. Since that is what I think you mean by "procentual share". It was a little hard to be sure, since procentual is not an actual English word.
    Anyway, while percentage accuracy is something I do push for, it is also something that I don't think should be strictly defining or limiting.

    You say that "telling us there are no more white men" presuming you mean in the Discovery universe or Discovery's Starfleet, "is just stupid and unrealistic and even more unnecessary". And I would agree. However, that's not what is shown in Discovery's universe or Discovery's Starfleet at all.

    To be particular, let's break down the characters we have who have shown to be relatively major characters...
    -Stamets = white male
    -Lorca = white male
    -Tilly = white female
    -Landry = racially ambiguous, but I'm going to go on a limb here and say white female
    -Burnham = black female
    -Saru = alien male
    -Georgiou = asian female
    -T'Kuvma = alien male
    -Koq = alien male
    -Culber = racially ambiguous, but likely latino male

    So already we have some white men, which breaks the idea of there not being any. Now let's get down to the percentages,. To do so, we will need to take the aliens off the table because aliens have no relation to human racial composition due to not being the same species.

    So that leaves us with 4 white people (2 male, 2 female), 1 asian person (female), 1 black person (female), and 1 latino person (male). So that is 50% white, 50% non-white. If we mean only white males as seems to be your concern, then we have 25% white males, 75% other, which is still understandable for a highly diverse space-faring universe. However if you take into account the fact that Georgiou is dead and so is *SPOILER AHEAD* Landry, then now we have 50% white people, 50% non-white people (so no actual change here), but in particular, 33~% white men, 66~% other (which is even more than the earlier numbers). Still completely viable representational percentages on a Starfleet ship regardless.

    So with the percentages in place, I still am not seeing any truth in your statement that Discovery is giving its viewers a message that "there are no more white men".


    PS: DB STOP ERASING MY COMMENT EDITS AND SAYING I HAVE TO WAIT FOR APPROVAL!!! MY FIRST COMMENT TO THIS THREAD STILL HASN'T SHOWN UP, SO I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO WAIT BEFORE CONTRIBUTING/EDITING MY CONTRIBUTION TO ANY DISCUSSION!!!
  • Unfortunately I really had a hard time understanding your response to me. I know English is not your native language though. But, it was still very difficult to understand.

    You did ask for a specific, so I will address one.
    qxqx wrote: »
    Show all "groups" and show their respective procentual share. Telling us there are no more white men is just stupid and unrealistic and even more unnecessary.

    First off, let me state that I push for percentage accuracies. Since that is what I think you mean by "procentual share". It was a little hard to be sure, since procentual is not an actual English word.
    Anyway, while percentage accuracy is something I do push for, it is also something that I don't think should be strictly defining or limiting.

    You say that "telling us there are no more white men" presuming you mean in the Discovery universe or Discovery's Starfleet, "is just stupid and unrealistic and even more unnecessary". And I would agree. However, that's not what is shown in Discovery's universe or Discovery's Starfleet at all.

    To be particular, let's break down the characters we have who have shown to be relatively major characters...
    -Stamets = white male
    -Lorca = white male
    -Tilly = white female
    -Landry = racially ambiguous, but I'm going to go on a limb here and say white female
    -Burnham = black female
    -Saru = alien male
    -Georgiou = asian female
    -T'Kuvma = alien male
    -Koq = alien male
    -Culber = racially ambiguous, but likely latino male

    So already we have some white men, which breaks the idea of there not being any. Now let's get down to the percentages,. To do so, we will need to take the aliens off the table because aliens have no relation to human racial composition due to not being the same species.

    So that leaves us with 4 white people (2 male, 2 female), 1 asian person (female), 1 black person (female), and 1 latino person (male). So that is 50% white, 50% non-white. If we mean only white males as seems to be your concern, then we have 25% white males, 75% other, which is still understandable for a highly diverse space-faring universe. However if you take into account the fact that Georgiou is dead and so is *SPOILER AHEAD* Landry, then now we have 66~% white people, 33~% non-white people, and in particular, 33~% white men, 66~% other. Still completely viable representational percentages on a Starfleet ship.

    So with the percentages in place, I still am not seeing any truth in your statement that Discovery is giving its viewers a message that "there are no more white men".

    Thank you, you read it procentual:=percental, according to my dictionary.

    You did a great job by splitting those groups. But I have to correct the calculation, according to the standard the gender fellows mean. I have to put following disclaimer again: The following criterias are not my criterias of qualifying groups of humans, they are the criterias of the "gender theory" followers..
    In Western societies this ideal, which is pervasive but unattainable for most men, can be described as being "white, heterosexual, stoic, wealthy, strong, tough, competitive, and autonomous".
    [1]

    So who do we have.
    • a whiny Lt who got killed because he can't find his way to the sickbay
    • a "bigot" (like you said [Xoiiku]) Admiral, whose dumb decisions costs the life of his crew
    • and the shady Cpt. Lorca

    The Lt is dead, even though he wouldn't qualify at all.

    The only who is left is the said shady Cpt. Lorca. In the end we have no one. Why don't we have a Riker, Trip, Reed, Data (lol, @white)? I think with giving the definition you now understand what I mean.

    I personally hate to split humans in those categories, and that is what I have meant with, that the DIS makers produces a hostile environment by taking the ideas of putting humans in those categories and utilizing their ideas. The very instance of their ideas we see when we have a look at the cast.

    I'd have prefered an even distributed cast instead of discriminating one "segment" again. But I understand, from the stance of the gender theory fellows, it is only white trash, so we can omit them entirely.

    [1] https://books.google.de/books?id=_nyHS4WyUKEC&pg=PT735&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
  • Ok let me be a bit crass. Who really cares?
    I have literally never heard of this "gender fellows" theory and I am usually on the up-and-up with a lot of gender theory because as someone in academia, I find these types of theories to be very flawed (mostly because the people who come up with them are never submitted to peer-reviewing). To me, the theory is crap, it doesn't mean sh!t.

    It is a stupid theory to apply to media or to let pervade one's entertainment, just as the Bechdel test is. Because neither of these theories seem to actually be accounting for quality, just quantity or very arbitrary factors which are loosely connected at best.

    I really don't see why you care so much about some unknown characters from the pilot first two episodes, some no-name idiot lieutenant, and some Admiral who we see for like 30 seconds at most. If you are making the argument "well all the white males are portrayed as bad or incompetent people", remember, this is Discovery where almost everyone is snide, rigid, and inconsiderate (something I honestly despise about this show). And *SPOILER AHEAD* this last episode, we got to see a woman cast in a bad light as well, Landry, the aggressive, imprudent zealot to Lorca who gets killed for her brashness and stupidity.

    I see why you keep ignoring the existence of Stamets due to this theory excluding the validity of non-heterosexual males. But to me, that is one reason exactly why this theory is crap - it thrives on identity relations vs actual character/person depth and development. And when a theory acts in that manner, I cast it aside as being entirely without merit.

    So in the end, why are you investing so much time and energy into this theory when it is honestly a terrible theory which has no backing in science or substance to it? If you are worried that you have no characters you feel you can relate to, then I'm afraid to reveal to you that Discovery has absolutely no characters anyone can relate to - unless somehow you can relate to near mindless drones obsessed with fulfilling their ship duties out of fear of shame or obligation.
    If how you relate to characters is by skin colour, sexuality, and expression of gender alone, then I feel sorry for anyone who is so locked onto such superficial things. Overall, I see zero discrimination happening here and I continue to think you are reading into something that is just not there.
  • PallidynePallidyne ✭✭✭
    Wow, honestly, I was not prepared for the depth of discussion here. And its 1am where I'm at so I'm going to ramble on a bit.

    I'm pretty much in line with Lady GG on what's been stated so far. I've got some thoughts on some different or tangential directions as well.

    I feel STD has taken a path of, lets follow on what makes some other shows (e.g. Walking Dead,) popular and shoehorn it into a JJcized Prime in Name Only environment. And while we're at it don't worry about having any chemistry at all. Just let edge and darkness be the reason people watch, not even good delivery of said product.

    And this is the crazy thing-- it'll probably work. Just as other reboots of other franchises which took the real thought and soul out of them and replaced them with angsty darkness did. I've watched in some cases tearfully, and in others with rage already more than once And one of them blew the doors off ratings for cable tv. And I know better than to mention the one franchise that hurt the most as the last time I said something like that, the wave of PMs on Facebook were disturbing to put it lightly.

    Star Trek led the way in so many places, gender and race only being some of them. The fact that a prime time drama commented on Vietnam, the possibility of Nuclear War, and so many other thought and feeling provoking issues even in the pilot of TOS--- whether it be to the exploration of the introduction of the Trill in TNG and having to confront our own preferences and prejudices-- and yes our demons with Sisko in the Pale Moonlight, and back to the light of Janeways insistence to not compromise basic starfleet principles but still try to get her people home. (Yeah you've got Tsunkaste and Spocks Brain but those were exceptions. Even the wooden soulless Bakula makes STD look like Shakespeare in the original Klingon. )

    Now we have a Star Trek that is just following the trends.

    Now we also have folks who must have Science Fiction to watch. And the thing is, this is what's happening to the genre in general. (Yes there are exceptions.) You have to get to the point of Science or Space Fantasy to come near the ideals of why many folks were drawn to Trek in the first place. STF is becoming the nail in the coffin where I cannot even watch Science Fiction TV of any sort anymore. The closest I can come is Superheroes, and a particular subset of that. But those folks will be a part of what keeps this show alive and kicking. They gotta have new Science Fiction no matter what the soul content. There are also ones who will keep it alive that are like the Star Wars fans who still continue to watch the Life Holiday special (not just the animated part but the whole thing) -- it's OK because its trek. They will keep it alive. But the ones I fear the most are the ones who never liked the values of Trek (watch JJ's interviews on the Daily Show for a start) to begin with who will revel in this and make the transformation complete and successful.

    So this week rather than going to my friends house who has CBS All Access to watch the latest train wreck, I watched Ken Burns Vietnam War series. Had depressing pieces for sure, but it also had some former Marines than actually upped my faith in humanity a few notches. And I have a new hero. John Musgrave. Probably flawed and human, but someone I can look up to.

    I don't see much of that, frankly Captain G mighta gotten there but was too fresh to go more than entertaining the possibility of admiration (Yeah I know of a fictional character.).

    I was at a con recently, where there was a Q&A with Linsday Wagner (the Bionic Woman), and she made a statement that I can't quite quote that talked about, how our protagonists and heroes whether real or imagined are supposed to be ones who inspire us.

    Many of us would not be here if we were not inspired by one or more characters somewhere in Trek lore.

    My only inspiration for Discovery is that I hope it ends like Blakes 7.
  • Ok let me be a bit crass. Who really cares?
    I have literally never heard of this "gender fellows" theory and I am usually on the up-and-up with a lot of gender theory because as someone in academia, I find these types of theories to be very flawed (mostly because the people who come up with them are never submitted to peer-reviewing). To me, the theory is crap, it doesn't mean sh!t.

    It is a stupid theory to apply to media or to let pervade one's entertainment, just as the Bechdel test is. Because neither of these theories seem to actually be accounting for quality, just quantity or very arbitrary factors which are loosely connected at best.

    I really don't see why you care so much about some unknown characters from the pilot first two episodes, some no-name idiot lieutenant, and some Admiral who we see for like 30 seconds at most. If you are making the argument "well all the white males are portrayed as bad or incompetent people", remember, this is Discovery where almost everyone is snide, rigid, and inconsiderate (something I honestly despise about this show). And *SPOILER AHEAD* this last episode, we got to see a woman cast in a bad light as well, Landry, the aggressive, imprudent zealot to Lorca who gets killed for her brashness and stupidity.

    I see why you keep ignoring the existence of Stamets due to this theory excluding the validity of non-heterosexual males. But to me, that is one reason exactly why this theory is crap - it thrives on identity relations vs actual character/person depth and development. And when a theory acts in that manner, I cast it aside as being entirely without merit.

    So in the end, why are you investing so much time and energy into this theory when it is honestly a terrible theory which has no backing in science or substance to it? If you are worried that you have no characters you feel you can relate to, then I'm afraid to reveal to you that Discovery has absolutely no characters anyone can relate to - unless somehow you can relate to near mindless drones obsessed with fulfilling their ship duties out of fear of shame or obligation.
    If how you relate to characters is by skin colour, sexuality, and expression of gender alone, then I feel sorry for anyone who is so locked onto such superficial things. Overall, I see zero discrimination happening here and I continue to think you are reading into something that is just not there.

    So, I had to take a day, you made me think about it. I had some first "of course" reactions, as I read your text, but I wanted to let it sink in a bit and see if I think so the same the next day.

    """Who really cares?""" and """I really don't see why you care so much"""

    I care so much because this is the general direction of nowadays shows/movies, let it be female ghostbusters , a black james bond etc. I see in many productions that the very identity is ripped off a movie just because what? I don't want ST to be in line with that (following todays shows in general). ST was always something special to me, it was different. It was better. So far it is the only show I have seriously watched. I've tried many others, but I'm not interested. They didn't make me think like ST did. Of course as a real fan/lover I really care about every tiny bit what is connected to this franchise. To see a whole show not remotely being what I expected, or even worse being the opposite, simply hurts.

    """So in the end, why are you investing so much time and energy into this theory when it is honestly a terrible theory which has no backing in science or substance to it? """

    Of course it is very true what you said. Why care about that gender terrorists? I guess the same reason is, why care about other terrorists? IF people don't stand up against them and their ambitions of changing our lifes, we already lost. I see so many bad things they already accomplished, like safe spaces, where it is more important on colleges to teach political correctness, rather than the truth. This all leads us to a dark place. The same is true for DIS, if they want to show us their political correctness from those fellows, I won't accept that, or at least I will not be happy about it.
    After all I haven't heard an argument why I should be fine with it when I don't see specific groups because of discrimination anymore. The only response I got was, "why do you care?". I care because it is unfair and thus not something I want to see with ST, where I prefer to see a desirable future. Because I care about every little bit what is related to ST.

    And yes, the theory actually IS crap. We and most normal thinking people, or even more, most people at all think so the same, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't stop their efforts. Only because it is a small group, doesn't necessarily mean they cannot change something (to the worse), I don't want to refer to the 9/11 terrorist who also was a very tiny group.

    It was very interesting to explore and go deeper into this "gender" aspect of the new DIS show. But I want to remind again. We could have talked the same about the countless other flaws of DIS, which you/me/others also stated. The other flaws are even more important why I dislike DIS. I just wanted to add the disclaimer here, because the gender talk could lead someone to the impression this aspect was the most important problem of the show. It is not, only in line to the other issues, just overweighted because of that much talk about it.
«1345
Sign In or Register to comment.