Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?

[jaime]

In a perfect world - casting could indeed be colorblind. The film "Cloud Atlas" did an incredibly brave attempt at it: It had black actors playing white characters, white actors playing asian characters, and asian actors playing white characters. It was an attempt.

But in reality, this issue is SO laden with intentional and un-intentional racism, it's a very hard topic to discuss. The problem with blackface is not that it's a white actor playing a black character. It's the whole stereotyping and demeaning beneath it. There's simply not going to be a "realistic" portrayal of a black man, if a white man directs another white man on how to "black" properly. An actor is not better because he can speak proper (white) mid-Atlantic movie dialect. How anyone can not see this honestly baffles the mind sometimes.

Also, if white people wouldn't just throw everytime a black actors play a traditional white role SUCH gigantic shit-tantrum (idris Elba being "too street" for James Bond, or the backlash of him playing Heimdall), and if we actually had a FEW black people behind the scenes, as directors or writer actually making decisions on how to portray black people on screen, the topic could be debated much more sober.

As it is, it's a minefield of shit-bombs. And we're years away from people being forgiving about mistakes with this topic.

Given the people involved, I am pretty sure ‘too street’ basically meant ‘not convincingly posh enough’ which is still pretty odd. I actually don’t think Idris is a good fit for bond, would have liked to see Colin Salmon working with Brosnan Bond more, and if I were casting Bond, would be auditioning Adrian Lester, as Hustle proved he would make a rather good Bond.
Basically Bond is a Brit character, and I suspect casting a black British actor as him would be less of a problem with the general populace here than people seem to think. Poor old Idris though, I dunno when he became the only Black Actor In The Village....though Hollywood seems to think so. Admittedly, I also think Lester would be a good Doctor Who, though I can also see...gah...I forget his name. The original Marquis De Caraíbas, he would be an excellent Doctor.
Basically I think it’s possible that some of the silliness around Idris as Bond story is basically nothing to do with race. Mind you, there was a hoo hah around Daniel Craig’s casting....and I don’t think he was well cast myself *shrug*
What can you do? I keep coming back to the problem being Hollywood itself tbh.

 

[Discofan]

I liked Star Trek when they used real butter, not that fake stuff...

 

[Lord Garth]

^ Margarine... I like margarine. It sounds like "The Menagerie"!

So you're saying it's not...OPTIMAL Prime? It needs to be transformed somewhat?

(*Rimshot*)

Ba Weep Granna Weep Ninny Bong!

 

[ITDUDE]

So you're saying it's not...OPTIMAL Prime? It needs to be transformed somewhat?

There is only one Prime. Spock Prime.... wait....

Wait, omg! That's Mirror Spock! So wait, is Transformers universe set in the Mirror Universe?! That actually explains a lot!

 

[Mudd]

And there's the people who say that denying it's Prime makes it more tolerable because then it's not "real Star Trek" and their broccoli won't touch their mashed potatoes.

Yeah, I don't give a fuck about that if something's good.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Yeah, I don't give a fuck about that if something's good.

If something is good it doesn't matter to me if they call it "Prime" or not either. I'm of the opinion that "Prime" and "things not Prime" are simply marketing terms and it's all irrelevant to the actual storytelling. And there doesn't seem to be anyone making the argument that labeling it "Prime" somehow improves its quality. If anything I think the "Prime" labeling debate seems to be about people wanting to give themselves permission to dismiss it or people not wanting to let people dismiss it. But yeah...it's a meaningless marketing term so none of it really matters ultimately.

 

[BillJ]

If anything I think the "Prime" labeling debate seems to be about people wanting to give themselves permission to dismiss it or people not wanting to let people dismiss it.

For me, it isn't about dismissing it. Its about a getting a setting where anything can happen. Spore drive could work. Klingons could win the war. Mudd could get killed. Sarek could get killed. The Romulans could show up. The Borg could show up. Kirk could get killed as a young lieutenant. And on, and on...

The Prime universe represents a creative straight-jacket. Watching the new Lost in Space is great, precisely because anything can happen.

 

[Tuskin38]

I dunno, Discovery has been pretty creative so far while being constrained to the Prime Universe.

 

[BillJ]

I dunno, Discovery has been pretty creative so far while being constrained to the Prime Universe.

Boy, that eight seconds must have escaped me somehow.

 

[Tuskin38]

Boy, that eight seconds must have escaped me somehow.

a lot the stories they told were unique.

 

[Gonzo]

For me, it isn't about dismissing it. Its about a getting a setting where anything can happen. Spore drive could work. Klingons could win the war. Mudd could get killed. Sarek could get killed. The Romulans could show up. The Borg could show up. Kirk could get killed as a young lieutenant. And on, and on...

The Prime universe represents a creative straight-jacket. Watching the new Lost in Space is great, precisely because anything can happen.

I have no doubt that its the main reason for the reboot in the new films, the ability to use an established universe without having to worry about timelines and fixed future events.

I think the films worked out great.

It took balls to destroy Vulcan and the Admiral Marcus plot from Into Darkness was one of the more realistic I have seen in the films alongside the plot to bring the Romulans into the war in DS9 and the Section 31 plots we have seen on TV.

I still think the Vengeance is bloody brilliant, they should have renamed it the 1701-A all it needed was a new colour scheme inside and out, although I also think the actual 1701-A we got in Beyond is great too.

The clandestine creation of the Vengeance was a perfectly understandable reaction to the destruction of Vulcan, its loss will have left a scar on the whole Federation which will take time to fade away.

Loved it.

One thing I do feel was missing is what the Romulans from that actual time period actually thought about Nero destroying Vulcan, would have been interesting to see their reaction, would they see the Federations weakness and capitalise on it or would they be afraid that a terrible reprisal is bound to come in response.

P.S Havent watched Lost in Space yet but will be soon.

 

[Lord Garth]

You know, post-VOY, there are no fixed events. But "OH NO!!!! Late-24th and 25th Century!!!!!" TNG and VOY were largely self-contained. All the "HUGE MASSIVE CONTINUITY!!!!" is really from DS9. And who says a series that takes place later on -- especially 20 years later -- even has to reference it? It doesn't.

"But Gene's Perfect Humans!!!!" They'd been moving away from that ever since he died.

On the other hand, I like the 23rd Century, so I don't mind Discovery being there. And, as they say, "art thrives on limitation."

 

[BillJ]

On the other hand, I like the 23rd Century, so I don't mind Discovery being there. And, as they say, "art thrives on limitation."

Nothing about Discovery reminds me of the 23rd century. Change a couple of names and the show could've easily been slotted into the 25th century.

 

[Lord Garth]

Nothing about Discovery reminds me of the 23rd century. Change a couple of names and the show could've easily been slotted into the 25th century.

Yeah, it could've been. The only thing that really stops it is the Klingons' mindset toward the Federation. No way do I see them ever going back to that mentality after TNG and DS9. But, if they were a whole other race, it would work.

 

[BillJ]

The only thing that really stops it is the Klingons' mindset toward the Federation. No way do I see them ever going back to that mentality after TNG and DS9.

I don't know? Put a century between the end of the Berman-era and the start of Discovery and I could easily see the Klingons going back to being bad guys.

Aren't they bad guys in the 25th century in Star Trek Online?

 

[Lord Garth]

My knowledge of Star Trek Online is one step above absolutely nothing. I'm embarrassed to say.

 

[BillJ]

My knowledge of Star Trek Online is one step above absolutely nothing. I'm embarrassed to say.

I'm not much higher on that mountain than you are.

 

[Refuge]

And, as they say, "art thrives on limitation."

Never heard of that. Is it about finding beauty in simplicity?

It's hard to recapture the mood of TOS it suited the decade it was created in. Discovery has set its own mood and I get that. The result visually is reflective of our times. Must admit I like the corny, colourful staged feel of The Original. Even the cardboard props and that soap opera acting style of the actors and actresses. Not sure if I'm meant to see it that way but that is the affect it has on me. Discovery has gone for a darker aesthetic with more dramatic less melodramatic acting. The feel is entirely different. With their budget it would've been hard for the producers not to want to exploit that. It's like the timeline they have fitted into is less about the Trek one and more about current production values, with fitting into present TV and visual trends. Again it makes sense the competition takes priority.

Just not convinced some of the in story technological aspects and those blessed Klingons needed to take the form they did.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

The Prime universe represents a creative straight-jacket.

Hear, hear!

 

[cbl1]

Not post 2387 and destruction of Romulus (last filmed piece of Prime Timeline) - after that the sky is pretty much the limit.