News Netflix not airing Short Treks, deal future questioned

[Amaris]

TNG's "The Outcast" (circa 1992) would like a word with you. (I personally didn't find it a compelling episode, but it dealt with issues of gender identity - although the resolution was probably not great as it seemed to imply such issues could be 'fixed'.)

Yes, being non-binary was a problem to be fixed, and the show made certain the actress was female. Not a good example.

I will give a shout out to Jonathan Frakes, though, who wanted the actor to be a male. I think he really did want to make Star Trek the frontrunner for genuine social change. I adore that man.

 

[Lord Garth]

Where are the non-binary characters?

I don't talk about it that often, but I'm one of those "non-binary" people. If they show up in DSC, that's great. As long as they don't show up as an obvious scream-out that "Hey! We have people who aren't either just gay or straight!" and nothing else, and then they think they've done their job. I want to be seen as an actual person, not some checkbox to tick off.

It can be something as simple as background actors, crew personnel who we see but aren't main characters or it could be an actual ongoing character. Doesn't matter to me, as long as it comes off natural.

Otherwise, not a big deal. It'll happen when it happens.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Warn me, fine. But you're perfectly fine with the crappy comment that was designed to bait a reaction? *slow clap*

Frankly, yes. This is the part of their post you quoted and replied to:

"So far the OP, in the same thread, has suggested that Netflix is desperate to end the agreement, and when he got no support has pivoted 180 degrees and now advocates that instead CBS is the one looking to end it."

It's blunt but on point and not laced with invective. Nor has that poster recently received a directive not to be so hostile in their replies, like you have. If you had just refuted their post without the hostility as you did for most of your post, I wouldn't have said anything. But you had to cap it off with this:

"Hope that adequately countered your shitty jab."

Also, saying "Warn me" kind of misses the point that when we give these mod "friendlies" or admonitions we're trying to avoid having to warn you by stopping the problematic issue before it gets out of hand. It's not an invitation to then switch the fight over to me, however. If you want to argue a moderator comment or action, send us a PM, don't argue the admonition in the thread.

 

[fireproof78]

It can be something as simple as background actors, crew personnel who we see but aren't main characters or it could be an actual ongoing character. Doesn't matter to me, as long as it comes off natural.

This is truly my concern, though I get the desire to have representation. I genuinely don't trust Hollywood to make it feel natural at this point in time. I mean, I don't even trust Hollywood to represent Christians naturally, and that's a group I identify with. But, not the way Hollywood presents them.

Make the characters natural, not check marks or caricatures.

 

[Amaris]

I don't talk about it that often, but I'm one of those "non-binary" people. If they show up in DSC, that's great. As long as they don't show up as an obvious scream-out that "Hey! We have people who aren't either just gay or straight!" and nothing else, and then they think they've done their job. I want to be seen as an actual person, not some checkbox to tick off.

It can be something as simple as background actors, crew personnel who we see but aren't main characters or it could be an actual ongoing character. Doesn't matter to me, as long as it comes off natural.

Otherwise, not a big deal. It'll happen when it happens.

That's the thing, though, I'm not talking about checking off boxes, I'm talking about giving people who think they're not seen or heard a chance to be properly represented on screen with characters they can relate to, to characters who tell them that they will exist, too, and they will prosper, they will be accepted. You should already have proper representation on screen, with good characters that serve a real purpose, but you don't. It's not right. Honestly, the best show for that, right now, is probably Steven Universe, though the show "Good Girls" is now premiering may hold a lot of promise. It's not checking boxes, it's acknowledging that real human beings don't fit into checkboxes, that they deserve to be seen and heard, and understood. Star Trek could do wonders with that idea. If only they would boldly go somewhere other than around the same block.

"It'll happen when it happens" isn't a great plan, because left to their own devices, Hollywood often won't let it happen.

 

[Lord Garth]

Hollywood moves like molasses. But there was also no Star Trek on TV from 2005 to 2017. So naturally they have to play catch-up. They could've had LGBT characters on ENT from the beginning or introduced them at some point later on in DS9 or VOY, and it's too bad that they didn't, but I blame not having LGBT characters in Star Trek until now on the previous regime, not this one.

As far as the movies, they wanted to play it as safe as they could in the 2009 film because they didn't want to take any chances. Star Trek was dead and they needed a crowd-pleaser to kick-start the franchise again. They needed characters everyone knows: Kirk, Spock, etc. in a summer blockbuster action film that everyone (or almost everyone) would like. And they delivered. Then they could start taking chances again in the sequels and finally did in Beyond with Sulu. It says more about society than it does about the film that such a big deal was made over what amounted to nothing.

In Discovery, Stamets and Culber had one of the best romantic relationships in Star Trek. That's a plus. As far as what they do in future seasons, we're almost in the 2020s. Times will be changing again. Right now, socially, we're in a backlash, a flaring up of the Culture Wars. But that will pass too.

 

[Amaris]

Hollywood moves like molasses. But there was also no Star Trek on TV from 2005 to 2017. So naturally they have to play catch-up. They could've had LGBT characters on ENT from the beginning introduced them at some point later in DS9 or VOY, and it's too bad that they didn't, but I blame not having LGBT characters in Star Trek until now on the previous regime, not this one.

As far as the movies, they wanted to play it as safe as they could in the 2009 film because they didn't want to take any chances. Star Trek was dead and they need a crowd-pleaser to kick-start the franchise again. They needed characters everyone knows: Kirk, Spock, etc. in a block-buster action that everyone (or almost everyone) would like. And they delivered. Then they could start taking chances again in the sequels and finally did in Beyond with Sulu. It says more about society than it does about the film that such a big deal was made over what amounted to nothing.

In Discovery, Stamets and Culber had one of the best romantic relationships in Star Trek. That's a plus. As far as what they do in future seasons, we're almost in the 2020s. Times will be changing again. Right now, socially, we're in a backlash, a culture war. But that will pass, too.

Well, about that:

Spoiler

Culber and Stamets "had" being the keyword. They killed Culber, which irritated the shit out of me, because it just seems so damned convenient to kill half of a really great same sex couple behaving like any old couple, in order to create drama, and in doing so, hobbles the entire point of having a same sex couple on screen. Now, if they would have kept them for several seasons, and then something happen? Maybe, but he was killed off in the first season, before they even had a chance to really explore their relationship.

I realize some may see it differently, but I can't help seeing the negative side of that action.

 

[Draculasaurus]

They couldn't think up anything to do with Travis Mayweather. They should have done a love story with him and Reed.

 

[Lord Garth]

Well, about that:

Spoiler

Culber and Stamets "had" being the keyword. They killed Culber, which irritated the shit out of me, because it just seems so damned convenient to kill half of a really great same sex couple behaving like any old couple, in order to create drama, and in doing so, hobbles the entire point of having a same sex couple on screen. Now, if they would have kept them for several seasons, and then something happen? Maybe, but he was killed off in the first season, before they even had a chance to really explore their relationship.

I realize some may see it differently, but I can't help seeing the negative side of that action.

I thought it was stupid to kill him off but I had already expected that anyone who's not Michael Burnham can die at any time. I even said so last year. I expected Tilly to not survive the season, to be honest. "Anyone can die" is what I go in expecting. Landry seemed like she'd be a regular character. Gone. T'Kuvma seemed like he would've been around for a while. Gone after the premiere. I thought the Shenzhou would be around as a secondary ship. Gone. I thought Kol might last longer than he did. Nope. Gone. On the other end, I thought Cornwell would die, but she lived. And, like I said, I thought Tilly would die because she seemed so innocent, but she lived.

I don't approach this series the same way I would've approached previous Star Trek series. Though, now, going into S2, it looks like Burnham, Saru, Tilly, and Stamets will be the core.

But I'm used to watching shows where everyone dies. Oz and Breaking Bad in particular. Battlestar Galactica too, if we want to throw in a genre show. When I was a kid, I was the only kid not upset when Optimus Prime died in Transformers: The Movie. It was sad, extremely sad, but it worked. And they replaced characters every year on that show, whenever the new toys were rolled out. So I was desensitized to character turnover from an early age.

 

[DaveyNY]

I don't talk about it that often, but I'm one of those "non-binary" people. If they show up in DSC, that's great. As long as they don't show up as an obvious scream-out that "Hey! We have people who aren't either just gay or straight!" and nothing else, and then they think they've done their job. I want to be seen as an actual person, not some checkbox to tick off.

It can be something as simple as background actors, crew personnel who we see but aren't main characters or it could be an actual ongoing character. Doesn't matter to me, as long as it comes off natural.

Otherwise, not a big deal. It'll happen when it happens.

I must of missed something.
When did being "BI" become "Non-Binary"???

I've been attracted to both men & women (Bi) since I first knew what sex was.
Am I confusing that with something else?

 

[Lord Garth]

I must of missed something.
When did being "BI" become "Non-Binary"???

I've been attracted to both men & women (Bi) since I first knew what sex was.
Am I confusing that with something else?

Process of elimination. I'm guessing "non-binary" is what he meant. As in you're either one or the other. If I'm wrong, he can correct me.

 

[Lord Garth]

And what does any of this have to do with Star Trek Shorts? Discovery can't be everything to everyone.

The Picard Series won't be everything to everyone either. One series will have a little bit of something and another series will probably have a little bit of something else and on and on. That's the way it's probably going to be.

 

[DaveyNY]

Process of elimination. I'm guessing "non-binary" is what he meant. As in you're either one or the other. If I'm wrong, he can correct me.

Oh, like in Personal Gender Identification.
OK, I see now, thanks.

 

[DaveyNY]

And what does any of this have to do with Star Trek Shorts? Discovery can't be everything to everyone.

Heh...
I was totally thinking this when I first read yer post...

And they are UNISEX.

 

[Amaris]

I thought it was stupid to kill him off but I had already expected that anyone who's not Michael Burnham can die at any time. I even said so last year. I expected Tilly to not survive the season, to be honest. "Anyone can die" is what I go in expecting. Landry seemed like she'd be a regular character. Gone. T'Kuvma seemed like he would've been around for a while. Gone after the premiere. I thought the Shenzhou would be around as a secondary ship. Gone. I thought Kol might last longer than he did. Nope. Gone. On the other end, I thought Cornwell would die, but she lived. And, like I said, I thought Tilly would die because she seemed so innocent, but she lived.

I don't approach this series the same way I would've approached previous Star Trek series. Though, now, going into S2, it looks like Burnham, Saru, Tilly, and Stamets will be the core.

But I'm used to watching shows where everyone dies. Oz and Breaking Bad in particular. Battlestar Galactica too, if we want to throw in a genre show. When I was a kid, I was the only kid not upset when Optimus Prime died in Transformers: The Movie. It was sad, extremely sad, but it worked. And they replaced characters every year on that show, whenever the new toys were rolled out. So I was desensitized to character turnover from an early age.

The thing is, though, they killed one half of the first same sex couple on Star Trek, and they did it in the first season. It just crushed me when they did that, I was mad, because there was finally real representation for the first time in a franchise I'd been desperate to see (and would have had hope if I'd saw it as a kid), and they just stole it. They stole it right out from under people.

 

[Lord Garth]

I understand that 100%. Part of why I thought it was a stupid move.

 

[Amaris]

I understand that 100%. Part of why I thought it was a stupid move.

I may have cried.

 

[DaveyNY]

The thing is, though, they killed one half of the first same sex couple on Star Trek, and they did it in the first season. It just crushed me when they did that, I was mad, because there was finally real representation for the first time in a franchise I'd been desperate to see (and would have had hope if I'd saw it as a kid), and they just stole it. They stole it right out from under people.

Based on what we've heard so far about Season-2 and those characters, I think they realized fairly quickly that it was a BIG mistake and are going to attempt to circumvent that error in some way.

 

[Amaris]

Based on what we've heard so far about Season-2 and those characters, I think they realized fairly quickly that it was a BIG mistake and are going to attempt to circumvent that error in some way.

I certainly hope so.

 

[Red Panda]

The thing is, though, they killed one half of the first same sex couple on Star Trek, and they did it in the first season. It just crushed me when they did that, I was mad, because there was finally real representation for the first time in a franchise I'd been desperate to see (and would have had hope if I'd saw it as a kid), and they just stole it. They stole it right out from under people.

Wilson Cruz is still on the show. Chillax man. They're doing some interdimensional stuff obviously.