There is the right way to do this, and the obvious clumsy way. Which is being used?
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
There is the right way to do this, and the obvious clumsy way. Which is being used?
Both, depending on the particular episode, at least to my view.
Writer of the week syndrome.
TV is called a "medium" because it is not rare and seldom well done.
I'll settle for medium well.
Honestly, and this might be controversial in of itself, but Discovery was never billed as an ensemble show, so it will not be. Michael and Saru will be the focus; it's a feature, not a bug. What I find more amusing is the idea that many individuals try to hang on to Discovery despite Michael being the main character, sucking or not.
But, I don't think she sucks either, so what do I know?
But, I don't think she sucks either, so what do I know?
As would we all. I'm not counting on it.
When it comes to entertainment I don't count on anything.
At this point I just want edible television and everything else is a bonus side dish with drink refills.
Wise, for the entertainment gods are fickle, and cannot do math.
Considering my current model was $300.00 that could become an expensive habit.
This whole idea that DSC goes "too far" (whatever that is supposed to mean) with "checking diversity boxes" is really puzzling to me. And I'm someone who tries to stay out of politics and identity discussion as much as possible, because I think it tends to get too ugly and emotional from all sides, particularly in an online forum where there is no accountability for being an asshole.
I work for a pretty "conservative" type of company in the northeast, where the general population is predominantly WASP-ish. And, I can tell you, that at my company we have a great representation of women, PoC, and LGBTQ+ individuals all over the place despite the community demographics. We have senior leaders who are all of the above. I work directly with several openly gay people (some of whom have spouses or partners that work in other areas of the company). We have transgendered employees who are very involved in our professional community. So, for me, this is a reality of mine today...let alone 300 years in the future.
So....I guess I just don't get it when someone says that the representation on a fictional future starship that is supposed to represent the broad make-up of Earth's cultures and backgrounds is "looking a little TOO diverse these days" when my own company, right here in the middle of lily-white small town New England, has wonderful representation of people from all over the place.
I'm not trying to pick sides or make a big fuss out of this...but honestly...WTF are we even talking about?
I work for a pretty "conservative" type of company in the northeast, where the general population is predominantly WASP-ish. And, I can tell you, that at my company we have a great representation of women, PoC, and LGBTQ+ individuals all over the place despite the community demographics. We have senior leaders who are all of the above. I work directly with several openly gay people (some of whom have spouses or partners that work in other areas of the company). We have transgendered employees who are very involved in our professional community. So, for me, this is a reality of mine today...let alone 300 years in the future.
So....I guess I just don't get it when someone says that the representation on a fictional future starship that is supposed to represent the broad make-up of Earth's cultures and backgrounds is "looking a little TOO diverse these days" when my own company, right here in the middle of lily-white small town New England, has wonderful representation of people from all over the place.
I'm not trying to pick sides or make a big fuss out of this...but honestly...WTF are we even talking about?
Last edited:
Tilly: white.
Saru: white actor.
Stamets: white.
Lorca: white.
Cornwell: white.
Detmer: white.
Reno: white.
Pike: white.
Number One: white.
Spock: white.
Mudd: white.
Yep. A diversity checklist running out of control.
Saru: white actor.
Stamets: white.
Lorca: white.
Cornwell: white.
Detmer: white.
Reno: white.
Pike: white.
Number One: white.
Spock: white.
Mudd: white.
Yep. A diversity checklist running out of control.
It's the same crap as when people complained about the Captain Marvel movie supposedly being "misandry" (
)
As cliche as it sounds, some people seem to feel threatened by the idea of a lead character who's female and/or non-caucasian and start screaming about "ebil nasty SJWs" as soon as a show includes some prominent characters who aren't white, hetero men.
It's time to face it: the real world isn't all male WASPS, so why should fiction be?
) As cliche as it sounds, some people seem to feel threatened by the idea of a lead character who's female and/or non-caucasian and start screaming about "ebil nasty SJWs" as soon as a show includes some prominent characters who aren't white, hetero men.
It's time to face it: the real world isn't all male WASPS, so why should fiction be?
But they are not The Great Trek Hope in DISC
Last edited:
I see what you did there. At least until we're all thrown into the late 32nd century.
Interesting - nowhere in my post did I say that you had a problem with the name. I questioned whether people - the people who whom you refer - would be triggered by seeing the name elsewhere. Seems like you're the one being prematurely defensive.
DS9 was the best Trek in my opinion too. Disco is not far off it, and I will happily make the comparison.
Controversial opinion: I don't give a 
about a character's height, weight, gender, sexual identity, orientation, race or whatever other factor people insist is somehow important. Either the character is interesting or they're not.
about a character's height, weight, gender, sexual identity, orientation, race or whatever other factor people insist is somehow important. Either the character is interesting or they're not.
It's the same crap as when people complained about the Captain Marvel movie supposedly being "misandry" (
As cliche as it sounds, some people seem to feel threatened by the idea of a lead character who's female and/or non-caucasian and start screaming about "ebil nasty SJWs" as soon as a show includes some prominent characters who aren't white, hetero men.
It's time to face it: the real world isn't all male WASPS, so why should fiction be?
Agree. And it's odd. I mean, I'm not going to lie or fake it...I'm actually very proud of who I am...and I'm the whitest, straightest, manly-manest, etc etc etc. I know, and I'm not going to feel bad about that or make any excuses. Hell, I don't even have a female offspring (2 boys)...but I don't even THINK about this shit as "threatening" or whatever. Maybe it's because at a young age, I thought Ellen Ripley really kicked ass and so right there, it was just hard-wired. But, man....it is weird to me.
Don't even include me, I have the same problem. I don't post in the DSC forum anymore because any criticism is either lumped in with "haters" or as antifeminist/ racist. I'm just tired of it.
But see, that's the issue with using a broad term as "pc." That is the reason I thought you might mean gender, race etc., and I qualified it with the fact that it might be something else.
OK, so you do mean race, gender, sexual orientation etc.
OK, I still see two complaints - one about "pc" (your identity politics - you want a male white het character) and one about the writing of the heroine (and maybe, just maybe you also don't like the character, which is fine and does not have to be rooted in anything beond that).
I still see no causal connection with "political correctness", even if some hardcore fans confuse the issues almost as much as a certain faction of Trek "fans". But I don't have to understand everything and I'm out (just because our debate would become circular/ repetitive).
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
