Star Trek Discovery: The Future is Definitely Female
- Thread starter Mirror Tuvix
- Start date
Such a tired argument. But especially laughable if you live in Aus. "Available" is exactly what Star Trek wasn't for many years at a time long before streaming platforms showed up.
But whatever, I enjoy my 10 bucks a month. Have found all manner of things I'd never see otherwise. Totally worth it, cost of 3 coffees here
Absolutely, I've had netflix for about a year now and suddenly half the threads in this forum now make sense, I've taken to binge watching and enjoying dozens of shows I had no access to before. It blows traditional TV out of the water in terms of accessibility and costs peanuts, not to mention being available on almost any halfway decent platform.
DSC can and should be blazing the trail in terms of representation. To an extent it has done and shown more courage than trek has done in recent decades, but I'd love to see it go further.
And therein lies my point. That platform and all it entails requires a specific audience - at least for now. In all likelihood Discovery may make it to regular TV, I hope it does. Blu Ray etc. However, as is? The types of people watching Discovery, the audience that is seeing whatever representation or entertainment Trek wants to deliver are those (apart from Canada) willing to subscribe. I would hazard a guess a number of those like us waving the flag.
By the way free to air does try to keep up a bit. Some US shows are being played here just hours after their screening in the US. Okay maybe a week after, lol. Discovery is just not one of them.
This week I watched Wild Wild West, The Birth of Sake, Gavin and Stacey and a K-drama. I'm very very satiated.
I wouldn't say blazing but it's done what little it has done very well, ie Stahmet and whatshisface. Lovely really. It's not breaking any new ground as far as tv goes (Klingon titties don't count) but it is breaking new Star Trek ground thank god.
As opposed to every other iteration of trek where you simply wouldn't have had the choice yet.
No one knows that. As I said we are getting US shows more directly now but even if we were not the wait would not necessarily be unbearable. At least the wait would reflect a different audience.
You can be a feminist and not have to hate men.agreed!
a propos of nothing this is not a very wholesome tweet but it made me chuckle
Nope, not when it came out.
TNG began in the US on Sept 26 1987
TNG began in Australia on Nov 2 1991 FOUR YEARS and two months late
DS9 began in the US on Jan 3rd 1993
DS9 began in Australia on Sept 10 1994 One year and 8 months late
Voyager began in the US on Jan 10 1995
Voyager began in Australia on April 16 1996 One year and 3 months late
Enterprise began in the US on Sept 20 2001
Enterprise began in Australia on Feb 9nth 2002 5 months late
I haven't included when they ended but I know some of these series would take very long hiatuses. As I said earlier I watched the VOY finale when it came out on video by renting it as it was months off being shown on tv. Incidentally way back then in the video times that overnight new release video rental cost me 6 dollars, just over half the cost of a month of Netflix.
Supernatural is like 4 weeks behind at the moment. Aus tv sucks. And no you don't need a "good household income" to afford 10 dollars a month.
But you'r original point was that DSC was less accessible than previous star trek, not some hypothetical free to view current version.
It is less accessible for those not willing or able to pay for it. When it was free it included both those groups. Do you not get that? Seriously am I not explaining it well enough? I don't meant to condescend. Previous Trek was accessible for anyone with a TV.
Yes it was super accessible to wait over 4 years to see TNG the flagship show of Trek.
So how 'bout those females eh?
As you can all see I love me some Tilley.
As you can all see I love me some Tilley.
I didn't move to Oz until 1996. However those waits above are not a problem. People still got to watch these shows as opposed to having to choose whether to pay or not.
Edit: regards the household income comment. For some people ten dollars and extra download costs do add up.
Last edited:
Don't we all?
Not being on air isn't being accessible, nor does airing at a certain slot in a certain area in the 1960s compare to streaming services.
You lived in the UK didn't you? The UK where trek was on the BBC, for which you have to pay a TV license.....
From my experience? I've seen most Trek in re-runs what with one thing and another.
Hey, I'm watching Voyager now
Another edit: Janeway, Seven (yes Seven) and B'Elanna. I love Janeway.
Very good.
I know there've been complaints about the realism of Miss Wiseman's supposed autism portrayal (although personally I'm not sure that was really what was shown onscreen anyway), but Tilly was for me an excellent example of positive female representation. She was flawed, she was human and she was fundamentally decent, she was someone that viewers of both genders could relate to as a realistic example of an ordinary human being in extraordinary circumstances.
That to me is what positive representation looks like, not idealised paragons of perfection, "evolved" humans who bear little resemblance to the reality of our own experiences. I'd love to be a fraction of the man Picard is, but in reality I can't empathise with him because he doesn't represent me, he represents an ideal, a set of ethical principles embodied in human form. He's as much a fantasy figure as the ship is.
As a man I always felt more akin to McCoy (minus the casual racism) or Archer, both imperfect, both frequently out of their depth but muddling through as best they can. Female posters may disagree with me here but I suspect many would relate more easily to Tilly than, say, Beverley Crusher.
I know there've been complaints about the realism of Miss Wiseman's supposed autism portrayal (although personally I'm not sure that was really what was shown onscreen anyway), but Tilly was for me an excellent example of positive female representation. She was flawed, she was human and she was fundamentally decent, she was someone that viewers of both genders could relate to as a realistic example of an ordinary human being in extraordinary circumstances.
That to me is what positive representation looks like, not idealised paragons of perfection, "evolved" humans who bear little resemblance to the reality of our own experiences. I'd love to be a fraction of the man Picard is, but in reality I can't empathise with him because he doesn't represent me, he represents an ideal, a set of ethical principles embodied in human form. He's as much a fantasy figure as the ship is.
As a man I always felt more akin to McCoy (minus the casual racism) or Archer, both imperfect, both frequently out of their depth but muddling through as best they can. Female posters may disagree with me here but I suspect many would relate more easily to Tilly than, say, Beverley Crusher.
Last edited: