That option is available to you in the form of not commenting... due to lack of giving of shits.
Should The New Show Include a Disabled Character?
- Thread starter hux
- Start date
That option is available to you in the form of not commenting... due to lack of giving of shits.
Ultraconstipation is a terminal condition rather than a disability.
Sixties? Patrick Stewart was in his mid-forties.
I think T'Girl meant the character was in his 60s. Picard was 59 years old in the first episode of TNG and 74 during Nemesis. The fact that Stewart began TNG at 47 very much muddies the waters of the claim that an older man was repesented, perhaps like wearing "old face?" If they - the producers - wanted to be age-inclusive, they really should have hired a 59-year-old actor to play the part. Of course, people in the future don't age as quickly as we do now, so obviously we have to compensate by hiring younger actors. But maybe you get the point.
Blind, deaf, color blind, gay, trans, hispanic, human, girl, woman, man, african, european, native american, muslim, islam, conservative, liberal, albino, kurd, indians, pakistani, young, old, rehabilitated, poor, wealthy, theist, atheist, jew, catholic, vegetarian, cybernetic, married, single, genetically or mentally "challenged," and all other targets of discrimination in the past that have been forgotten because those people no longer exist.
Now, among a cast of six or seven, choose who to include and who to leave out. Which choices are more important? Which choices are required to make a mainstream show commercially successful with the majority of viewers so it can stay in production for more than one year? Who will be disappointed by your choices? Get ready for the Twitter backlash from those who can't see beyond their own special interest.
Last edited:
No longer exist, this is hardly true. You could make the argument that discrimination is gone (although this could explain the absence of gays), however many of the groups/peoples you listed are still present.
Picard (him again) is overtly nationalistically French for one, he is urban, judgmental, conceited, bilingual, confirmed bachelor, heterosexual, and while only middle aged by future reckoning he isn't a young man anymore and he knows it.
Riker (iirc) said that those aboard the flagship are "the best of the best," implying that there are those in Starfleet who are not. While these two groups are not totally separate, there is a separation
+
Last edited:
That doesn't make sense. It's axiomatic that a people no longer existing are not present today to receive the social discrimination of whichever brand was manifested there. They are not listed because, sadly, they have been forgotten. In any case, that's an aside. I hope I sufficiently explained my post so that the larger point could be better understood.
Last edited:
A human bucket to pour all our disabilities into?
I can't remember the title, but one of the TNG books had a female character who was Autistic
A Skin of ... well, not Evil, but... what? Is this character the sacrificial son upon which all disabilities are imbued and then cured? Sounds like a TOS episode somehow. Hmm, The Empath?
You have to admit though, that it isn't possible, to represent the whole spectrum of humans with just a few main characters. For example so far it seems humans, who grew up in the territory of the current USA, are far more likely to end up in Starfleet and in the crew of starships, than humans from other places. Some people's wishes of representation have to be disappointed, at least when we only look at the main cast.
How much would the rights to Davros cost?
Not necessarily a disability due to injury or birth defect, but it would be cool to see a character that was an aquatic species in a self-contained, humanoid-shaped suit (resembling a space-walk suit). Said character would have to wear such a suit to walk around within the environment of the crew, but when they went back to their quarters, their room was essentially an aquarium held in place by force fields. The character would be free to swim, and it would be revealed their form more closely resembled a fish.
This character could deal with the "disability" of being confined to a suit much of the time.
This character could deal with the "disability" of being confined to a suit much of the time.
While people from all over the United States (and outside) join the US military, the highest percentage of the military comes from the American south-east.
But as far a the usual meaning of "disabled" that individual wouldn't be disabled. It would be like a starship that the majority of the crew came from a world where the typical light levels were dim, their eyes were very sensitive.
Now would a Human stationed to this ship be considered "disabled," because they are (from their perspective) in the dark? I would say no.
=
Last edited:
I disagree, if you have a character in a wheelchair for example it makes more sense to hire an actor who can walk, makes life easier for everyone especially if they shoot on location, not every place is accessible for wheelchairs. The actor could also be used for dream sequences, flashbacks or alternate realities where the character walks.
They gave Geordie a visor and later implants and Pulaski suggested regrowing his nerves and eyes iirc, Worf got an entirely new new spine to make him walk again, so they are actively curing disabilities and are working on new methods.
Unless you're shooting on the side of a mountain, I don't really see why it would be more difficult to cast a disabled actor. Ramps aren't that hard to come by these days.
Able-bodied actors playing disabled characters is fast becoming seen as offensive and patronising. If you're creating a disabled character then your first port of call to play that character should be a disabled actor (exceptions can be made for stories that deal specifically with a character's journey from able-bodied to disabled (such as The Theory of Everything) but those exceptions should be exactly that... exceptions).
Speaking as another disabled person I agree with you.
To a point.
On the one hand you're right. We need stories that are about hope and characters who are heroes. This "relateable characters with flaws" nonsense has long since played itself out and become a joke. On the other hand, we Do need to be represented. "Melora" showed people the stereotype of disabled people and although I've mellowed toward that in my old age, there's still a art of the young man inside me who found that insulting.
I say they should try it. Who knows? They might get it right this time.
Heh. Yeah, that would solve everybody's problem, wouldn't it?Wouldn't it be more efficient to just have the disabled gay minority character all be the same guy?
