Why??? Why on earth does DSC has to change its premise for the sake of Patrick Stewart's new show? That doesn't make any sense to me? Why make Sonequa Martin-Green's show all about Patrick Stewart? Because that is what it sounds like. I know this probably won't happen. But if by the slim chance it does, I'm through with Star Trek.
Well firstly, my point was a question intended to encourage debate not a request or a demand. Secondly moving DSC to the 24th century (which I suggested as a joke) wouldn’t entail it becoming “all about Patrick Stewart”. There were 2 other 24th century shows that had nothing to do with Patrick Stewart. I think you meant “because that is what it sounds like to me”.
Why? Because the leading character is portrayed by a white man who has worked within the franchise before, in compare to a black woman in the lead?
Don’t mince words, Bones, tell me what you really think.
I don’t like Michael Burnham as a character.
Picard is a better known character and I would guess more popular than Michael Burnham. But yes, let’s boil the whole thing down to race and sex. I can’t see how you got that from what I said without the most superficial reaction to my post that was motivated by what I can only assume are your pre-existing attitudes towards both Patrick Stewart and Sonequa Martin-Green.
If I gave the impression that I would prefer a straight white male over an ambiguous POC female as the lead character in Star Trek then I sincerely apologise.
But I respectfully suggest that you read way more into my post than was there.
I think what Zorn's saying - and I do disagree with him - is that the time period in which STD is set is responsible for some of its limited popularity within Trek fandom, and that the same actors/characters, ship and storylines would be more successful in the 24th century.
This is sort of what I was getting at, yes. The fact that DSC is a prequel and there’s the potential for contradictory story points etc. is part of the reason why I suggested a later time period. That and the fact that TNG was the most successful Trek ever and was also set in the 24th century led me to my original suggestion. I think we’d be having fewer arguments if DSC was post-NEM... but then again, maybe not
It’s been mooted before Stewart’s show was a thing. And SMGs show was in danger of becoming Jason Isaacs show.
I don’t think her race, ethnicity or melanin levels were a factor.
I’d rather they not Bozeman it tbh.
You’re right about my original post - I only suggested that Picard was more popular than Michael - a point that I still think is correct. Race, sex, ethnicity, etc. had nothing to do with what I said.
It has nothing to do with race, for a majority of people anyways.
I'm sure there are some 'fans' who care, and they can go fall in a hole.
It has nothing to do with race for me either. I don’t know how we got from “Picard is a more popular character than Michael Burnham” (which is my opinion based only on circumstantial evidence) to a suggestion that I’d prefer a white male as the lead of the show.
Honestly if my original post came across as racist I can’t apologise enough.
I just want to discuss Star Trek with other people who like it, that’s all.
I guess that's why they all look so much alike.
