Just gonna put this out there. Maybe it's not your place to tell people of color how they should feel about black representation in media? Not a great look.
Jason Isaacs VS Sonequa. Who Should Have Been The Series Lead? (Spoilers)
- Thread starter Kane_Steel
- Start date
I never told her how she should feel.
I told her my opinion as to the best way to deal with disappointments and encourage positive change.
Well, that escalated quickly.
If you like SMG and think she's doing a great job, that's fine by me. I just don't like her performance. It would have been interesting to see Rosario Dawson in the role, like someone said in a previous post.
If you like SMG and think she's doing a great job, that's fine by me. I just don't like her performance. It would have been interesting to see Rosario Dawson in the role, like someone said in a previous post.
When did this thread stop being about Discovery and become the McCarthy hearings? I'm sorry, but is it 1954? Are Marxists creeping around every corner of the TrekBBS trying to subvert the board? Why are you worried about irrelevant nonsense to the point of going on a lengthy rant to make sure no one falls in with that crazy Marxist crowd all the kewl kids are hanging with 70 years ago?
You consistently inject your angry personal politics into discussions that have nothing to do with them. And yes, I know other people did as well (in response to you), but you first took us on this detour with your SJW rant in the top post and then things just got weirder and weirder from there. Seeking social justice is Marxism? Don't throw out terms you don't understand. It just makes you look uninformed and reactionary. Great, you can quote a dictionary definition, yet you don't seem to grasp how that definition has nothing to do with what you were connecting Marxism to.
If you want to discuss more politics, there are two forums for it here: Miscellaneous and TNZ. Or there are plenty of political forums elsewhere. Occasionally there are even Trek related threads in the show-related forums here that specifically deal with political views. But if you feel the need to constantly rant about SJW's and virtue-signalling and Marxism in every other thread, maybe you're a bit too intense for normal discussion here?
Anyway, you're getting an infraction for trolling for starting us on this little detour with the SJW/Marxist/Fascist/Bigot rant and calling people "Marxist useful idiots" and other personal remarks. Comments to PM.
And to everyone else, let's get back on track with the original premise of the thread, please.
Last edited:
*sigh*. I watched this site for a few months before joining - I was hopeful it wouldn't go the way of so many others in degenerating into political rants. I've seen it happen on too many forums. I'd echo the call to please steer clear of politics?
My thread on choice of actor/actress (or just 'actor' if you prefer the non-gender specific term) for the captain, along with (I am assuming) the originator of this thread, wanted to discuss the dynamics of the Lorca/Burnham relationship and how it might affect the future of DSC.
For what it's worth I'm not a straight white male. Do I think displaying diversity is important? Of course.
Do I have views on identity politics vs economic issues? Of course - but I don't think this is the place to discuss them.
It's easy to forget we are a little corner of the internet. Like it or not, CBS was late to the party, has introduced a streaming service that (according to many Americans on here) has been less reliable than competitors. CBS as a corporation is almost certainly risk averse (like all the major legacy networks). It wanted an iteration of ST that would satisfy existing fans and bring in new ones to bolster its new service. So, maybe it did strive for some gender/racial targets to help with this? No big deal. The more important issues, for where a forum like this is concerned (or at least, from what I read for months before joining) was about the episodes, story arcs etc.
As far as the episodes and story arcs are concerned my concerns have largely been the commercial decisions CBS made which might jeopardise DSC. They interfered to turn what was intended to be an anthology into a more traditional multi-season ensemble piece. To be honest, I could have lived with either model. But, the delays in production resulting from this change were not long enough. We've ended up with (in my view) a very enjoyable show but which is in danger - it's neither fish nor fowl. The writers/showrunners are stuck in a model whereby there are few characters we "know well" and can relate to (we still don't know details of half the bridge officers!)...whose inter-relationships are unexplored...and who are becoming non-viable for a 2nd season at an alarming rate, if you want an ensemble continuing "traditional" show. You CAN kill off characters, make them non-viable etc a la GoT but you need a larger initial cast. DSC is still (to me) working to the anthology template....which CBS has vetoed. The average viewer who doesn't frequent these boards is going to feel flummoxed in S2 if this goes on. It's not what they expected if half the cast must be replaced. You have an anthology show which isn't really an anthology show. As a regular picked me up on - what's wrong with new characters in a new season? True. But that's not what the show, as currently broadcast, is being "sold as" - it may work...but this is very very risky for CBS. Netflix could risk it. A legacy network playing "catch-up" probably shouldn't try - it'll make or break the new service. Not the kind of gamble investors would like.
Finally, returning to Lorca and Burnham - as I said elsewhere, Isaacs is brilliant, but I have to wonder if CBS should have reconsidered his casting when they vetoed the anthology idea (unless they recast Burnham to ALSO be "A list"): A Hollywood "A list" actor as your "B" character becomes fraught with risk to the average punter. GoT managed killing off Sean Bean....but then again, everyone knows Sean Bean's character dies ;-) And they had a larger ensemble to move things on seamlessly, with a fully fleshed out book to act as "writers' bible". DSC doesn't seem to have had time to redevelop its bible, knowing Isaacs would not stick around for more than one or two seasons.
So my worries are that (as is so often the case) network interference may stymie a good show. It'd be nice if people could either argue that my concerns are rubbish or discuss ways forward, rather than engage in identity politics vs economics. Just my 2 cents worth.
My thread on choice of actor/actress (or just 'actor' if you prefer the non-gender specific term) for the captain, along with (I am assuming) the originator of this thread, wanted to discuss the dynamics of the Lorca/Burnham relationship and how it might affect the future of DSC.
For what it's worth I'm not a straight white male. Do I think displaying diversity is important? Of course.
Do I have views on identity politics vs economic issues? Of course - but I don't think this is the place to discuss them.
It's easy to forget we are a little corner of the internet. Like it or not, CBS was late to the party, has introduced a streaming service that (according to many Americans on here) has been less reliable than competitors. CBS as a corporation is almost certainly risk averse (like all the major legacy networks). It wanted an iteration of ST that would satisfy existing fans and bring in new ones to bolster its new service. So, maybe it did strive for some gender/racial targets to help with this? No big deal. The more important issues, for where a forum like this is concerned (or at least, from what I read for months before joining) was about the episodes, story arcs etc.
As far as the episodes and story arcs are concerned my concerns have largely been the commercial decisions CBS made which might jeopardise DSC. They interfered to turn what was intended to be an anthology into a more traditional multi-season ensemble piece. To be honest, I could have lived with either model. But, the delays in production resulting from this change were not long enough. We've ended up with (in my view) a very enjoyable show but which is in danger - it's neither fish nor fowl. The writers/showrunners are stuck in a model whereby there are few characters we "know well" and can relate to (we still don't know details of half the bridge officers!)...whose inter-relationships are unexplored...and who are becoming non-viable for a 2nd season at an alarming rate, if you want an ensemble continuing "traditional" show. You CAN kill off characters, make them non-viable etc a la GoT but you need a larger initial cast. DSC is still (to me) working to the anthology template....which CBS has vetoed. The average viewer who doesn't frequent these boards is going to feel flummoxed in S2 if this goes on. It's not what they expected if half the cast must be replaced. You have an anthology show which isn't really an anthology show. As a regular picked me up on - what's wrong with new characters in a new season? True. But that's not what the show, as currently broadcast, is being "sold as" - it may work...but this is very very risky for CBS. Netflix could risk it. A legacy network playing "catch-up" probably shouldn't try - it'll make or break the new service. Not the kind of gamble investors would like.
Finally, returning to Lorca and Burnham - as I said elsewhere, Isaacs is brilliant, but I have to wonder if CBS should have reconsidered his casting when they vetoed the anthology idea (unless they recast Burnham to ALSO be "A list"): A Hollywood "A list" actor as your "B" character becomes fraught with risk to the average punter. GoT managed killing off Sean Bean....but then again, everyone knows Sean Bean's character dies ;-) And they had a larger ensemble to move things on seamlessly, with a fully fleshed out book to act as "writers' bible". DSC doesn't seem to have had time to redevelop its bible, knowing Isaacs would not stick around for more than one or two seasons.
So my worries are that (as is so often the case) network interference may stymie a good show. It'd be nice if people could either argue that my concerns are rubbish or discuss ways forward, rather than engage in identity politics vs economics. Just my 2 cents worth.
G
Gonzo
Guest
Moving swiftly on...
I do feel Isaacs is stronger in the show but that's the script more than anything else, plus there is no guarantee he will be sticking around and this season may end up being seen as a setup arc for what is to come in future seasons.
Burnham is most likely going to end up as the Captain of the Discovery sooner rather later as it sure as hell can't be Lorca any more.
It really depends on how long we stay in the MU, for all we know the show will remain there which would explain why we never heard of the Discovery or Burnham.
Truth be told neither Lorca nor Burnham have really got much of a reason to go back.
Saru could take the Discovery back home and then everything gets classified even more than it already is.
I do feel Isaacs is stronger in the show but that's the script more than anything else, plus there is no guarantee he will be sticking around and this season may end up being seen as a setup arc for what is to come in future seasons.
Burnham is most likely going to end up as the Captain of the Discovery sooner rather later as it sure as hell can't be Lorca any more.
It really depends on how long we stay in the MU, for all we know the show will remain there which would explain why we never heard of the Discovery or Burnham.
Truth be told neither Lorca nor Burnham have really got much of a reason to go back.
Saru could take the Discovery back home and then everything gets classified even more than it already is.
I think that SMG should be the lead over Lorca, if only because she's not playing a captain. But whatever they were trying to do with the raised-by-Vulcans concept isn't working or is deliberately being ignored. The writing and plotting on the series is not conducive to character development. But I'll still go with SMG, because a new perspective is good.
Burnham is ultimately a more interesting character for me than Lorca. Both are great but Sonequa really lifts every scene she's in, especially during this MU arc. I hope by the end of season 1 she's captain of Discovery. I kinda doubt that will happen. I think Saru is the more likely candidate. But she's an excellent lead either way.
They annoy me too. The Star Wars reaction on gender line on TFA annoyed me, cos it was stupid. Film wasn’t yahoo amazing, but the new characters were good. Am not sure I am gonna like TLJ when I see it, but it won’t be anything to do with Finn, Rey, Poe, and probably the new girl.
Ghostbusters 2016 though? Yeah, apart from..from..man. Can’t remember names. Quirky girl, Real Ghostbusters Egon and Janine lovechild...she was fun. (Embarassing. Seen it one and a bit Times, got the Blue Rey. Names escape me...it’s been a long day) everything else? Pretty much ranged from ‘Hmm not bad’ to ‘this is awful’. It managed to be more prejudiced in so many ways than the original, an original made in the dark ages of the nineteen eighties. I am glad people out there liked it, because hey, it’s nice to like things...but it was not very good at all, and Leslie Jones should have refused to do it unless they changed the script. I haven’t seen her in anything else, and I hope she’s better. I liked The Heat, I liked Spy, I drifted off and didn’t bother with Bridesmaids. So I don’t have a problem with the production team or any of the cast. But Answer The Call was just bad, and anyone using politics to defend it or attack it is just wrong.
I find it sad that SF, a genre that historically (in film at least) has had good to great representation for ‘minorities’ since at least the eighties boom, is now finding itself embroiled in this shitstorm.
SMG? Well...first, she needs a new acronym for wider use, cos Buffy happened, but...she’s striking me as an actor in the early Neve Campbell mold, and she’s not entirely working for me as a lead, nor is Burnham as a character. There are flashes here and there, but it’s been a mess. Is isaacs the better poster child? Meh. Maybe. I do t see him as A list either...he’s in the early Alan Rickman mold, but without the diverse career. But then, that shouldn’t matter with a Trek series. What they needed was to spend more time doing what they have done frankly.
I don’t think she’s awful. I think the writing hasn’t done her many favors. I would probably enjoy the character more had they continued with Vulcan references and explaining how and why the Klingon attack affects her.
Ghostbusters was just a movie for me. I enjoyed the last one. I can’t name the actresses or the characters, but I also can’t name the characters in the one from the 80s. I also barely remember the plot. Shakespeare, it isn’t. I just find the male fans complaining about female leads in some of these movies tedious. I watch Star Trek and Star Wars too and I am thrilled to see women in positions of power. I was also thrilled to see Lorca in a love scene with a woman his age instead of with someone 20 years younger. I am happy that Tilly has such a prominent role. I hope they will improve the writing for Burnham so I can be more thrilled to see her in the captain’s seat, which is probably where this is going.
Ghostbusters was just a movie for me. I enjoyed the last one. I can’t name the actresses or the characters, but I also can’t name the characters in the one from the 80s. I also barely remember the plot. Shakespeare, it isn’t. I just find the male fans complaining about female leads in some of these movies tedious. I watch Star Trek and Star Wars too and I am thrilled to see women in positions of power. I was also thrilled to see Lorca in a love scene with a woman his age instead of with someone 20 years younger. I am happy that Tilly has such a prominent role. I hope they will improve the writing for Burnham so I can be more thrilled to see her in the captain’s seat, which is probably where this is going.
Last edited:
Except for Tom Paris.
And given how those technologies ended up, it sounds like penal colonies might have been needed again.
There is absolutely no evidence that "equity" was considered before quality in the selection of SMG for the role of Burnham.
You think the show would have been an "ensemble piece" with either of the aforementioned Oscar winners playing the captain? That's not quite the way the business works. Besides, there are plenty of female minority actors out there other than the two you mention.
Indeed, I'm sure that will the case; unless of course Prime Lorca is still alive somewhere. Whilst I love all the characters as part of an ensemble, I'm not looking forward to Lorca's departure from the centre seat as whilst there are two obvious captains in waiting (Saru and Burnham), neither are as captivating as Lorca to me.
I completely agree, Seven's a good analogy; throughout her time on Voyager, she was constantly struggling to fit in (the same can also be said of Spock and Data). If they really wanted to focus on Burnham, putting her on a ship with a by-the-books captain and crew would have worked better as it would have created a bigger contrast and there wouldn't have been any distractions to her arc. I feel as though with the opening episodes to Discovery there was a real feel of it being a different type of Trek, with a real sense that Burnham was the lead character but then pretty soon after Discovery enters the picture it becomes more or less the same Trek formula. Personally, I don't think that's a problem; I've been loving the show and think it's cool that the prologue was rather different. However, now that it seems likely that Lorca will be gone from the show (or at least no longer captain/in Starfleet) I think the show will suffer greatly as a result. Since the Discovery entered the picture, I'd argue most of the attention has been on Lorca, given his mysterious background and the constant questioning one does as viewer as to whether he's a 'good man' or not. Personally, I think it will be odd going back to focusing on Burnham if they do just drop the Lorca character.
The funny thing is, Marxists deeply hate identity and cultural politics. Like, the core of Marxism is one's relations to production is one defines ones social standing, not identity and culture and society is just a system built to reinforce productive relations. To a Marxist, Racism, Sexism, Homophobia etc are all just manifestations of class politics to divide people even further along economic lines. Marxists would hate the idea that "diversity" in Television or media or representation means anything, because it doesn't address any underlying economic issue which causes issues of racism or bigotry.
The term "SJW" and "Idpol" is basically a smear word that was originally used Marxists against liberals that were later appropriated by the right. (Regressive leftist is another one)
At this point, what is the arc of Burnham even supposed to be? She hasn't really grown at all over the show and she's right about everything. "Failing upwards" is Michael Burnhams defining characteristic.
I really hope S2 they stop just focusing on one character and go back to an ensemble cast. I would watch an episode of DS9 where Nog cleans up the sexual fluids from Quarks Holodeck because I love all those characters so much. Discovery is risking a lot on basically a character most people are iffy on.
I know i'm weird, but I'd rather a show take a risk than play it safe. If I want safe Star Trek, I got DVDs.
Isn't she already the led? She gets top billing doesn't she, with Issacs coming in the 2nd best spot right at the end?
So why do we seem more drawn towards Lorca than SMG? I suspect there are several reasons
1.>The writing
2.>Issacs is simply a better actor than SMG and as such we as the audiance are drawn to him.
There'll likely be other reasons as well and the reasons will, vary from person to person. Some might be more drawn to SMG and Burnham for their own reasons.
Me, pick me!
Fair point.