A character doesn't actually have to be part of the military for the "military hard-ass" archetype role to apply/be assigned to them.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
A character doesn't actually have to be part of the military for the "military hard-ass" archetype role to apply/be assigned to them.
IIRC, the characters in Alien weren't written gender specific. Ripley could have easily been a man. I also seem to remember Janeway wasn't locked into being a woman until late in the process. The part could've went to either gender.
IIRC, Ripley had a rank (Lieutenant) so I can only assume she was in fact in the military.
I don't think she did. But, it has been a while since I've seen the movies.
Right. so then female Kirk can behave that way without a problem.
Bullshit.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/our-brains-have-no-gender/
And most men don't behave that way either.
It's 23rd century. Maybe Carol was one pregnant even if Kirk was a woman. They'll figure it out.
And this was never about one specific character, merely about Mirror Mirror's claim that changing the look of everything doesn't 'change events' whilst changing a gender of a character would. I am merely challenging that assertion. If you can imagine any one character, changing of whose gender would not change the events, than that assertion is false.
I finally watched the Trekyards video and... I agreed with them about something *shudder*
If you've watched it you know what.
If you've watched it you know what.
No woman would certainly behave that way!
Actually I'm pretty sure Kirk didn't, he tended to end up in fights, but rarely used violence as a first resort.
Surely though the choices involved (who carries the baby etc) alter the story?
I get what you're saying (casting genderblind is admirable), but I think genderswapping is enough of an alteration to render the continuity of any genderswapped episodes as separate from the regular ones.
Spill the beans, for those of us that don't want to waste the time?
That DSC is a reboot and entirely separate from the rest of Trek. And they're okay with that.
I tend to think most people would be okay with it as a reboot or different timeline (spun off of the events of First Contact, as a sequel to Enterprise). CBS just didn't have any faith in the show being able to sell subscriptions without pandering.
Then again, based on the quality of the show we got, I would probably be pandering too if my job depended on it.
How about a temporary genderswap?
Given the above - we can trace the 'alteration' being due to the events in the film "Star Trek: First Contact" so as per usual, it's ALL TNG's fault!
on small 1960 era TV (which were LESS clear than VHS was in modern day - they were honestly concerned even 1710 was close enough to 1701 to confuse viewers on low rez TVs.Apparently they never considered 1710...
And no one was lazy - there was no 'accepted ship numbering scheme' in the series bible and ALL THROUGH ITS NETWORK RUN - Star Trek was never anywhere near the top of the charts, so no one figured there would be fans of this show analyzing every frame of video and film 50+ years later.
They didn't even have to bother with numbers. They could have simply put some hull damage where the number is supposed to be.
Then it's a transporter mishap episode.
You do realize the Hull Damage shown on the Saucer was due to a BIC lighter, right? (No, no kidding). My point? They were doing things FAST. The easiest/quickest way to get the AMT model ready WAS to use the decals as they did - all to avoid possible audience confusion, and better differentiate the ships on the TV screen for that story. Doing extra painting on the model would have taken time they didn't have/want to waste on such an honestly trivial detail.
Similar threads
