Alex Kurtzman: 'Star Trek: Discovery' Will Spark Debate And Adhere To Canon
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
He's also been a mouse, a total fraud, and an enemy/destroyer of The Great Old Ones.
The latter two are somewhat greater deviations for the character than his age, race, or sex. Somehow, the results are still generally considered to be 'pretty good.'
There is a Wonder Man. He's been a reasonably well-known comic character for decades.
Last edited:
Wonder Woman has in fact been an icon for gay men for generations now. But you're drawing a false equivalence. Society already privileges white heterosexual cismales; we don't need more representation, because we already have an unfair share of it. It's everyone else who needs more representation.
That's no fun I was hoping to see him in a cone bra and was already trying to imagine where he was going to holster his lasso.
There's only two things that will keep me from watching a Trek TV show, (1) the show tries to hard to be Star Trek instead of just being a good scifi TV show, (2) unbelievable and distracting aliens in the main crew that you have to watch every week if you watch the show.
I can't say how much I hated Data the first year of TNG, well, besides the gawd awful scripts. Several years later, Data and that idiot nerd 1st officer were my favorite characters on the show. Data and Riker changed for the better. However, DS9 and VOY had alien characters I just couldn't stand, and they didn't grow on me like Data did, so there are still DS9 and VOY episodes I haven't seen yet. And as much as I love TNG, there are still a few episodes of that one I have seen yet either, all having Lwaxana Troi in them. TOS and ENT are the only Trek shows I know I've seen every single episode of the series. Not that I liked all of the episodes in them either.
I love Trek. But it doesn't mean I'll watch every single episode of a Trek show just because it's Star Trek. DS9 had some of the greatest episodes in Trek, but there are lots of episodes of DS9 I haven't seen and will never watch.
Captain Wonder through the ages
One of those made me blush.
Interesting though, I wonder why Captain Wonder didn't capture the audience. He'd probably fare better in current times.
WW comics were pretty crappy back then. Wonder Woman was lucky to still be published. The concept may get a new shot as DC has recently introduced WW's brother.
The rest probably meant Marvel's Wonder Man.
Then there was "Batmanuel", the Hispanic Batman from the Tick live-action TV series.
As for a male Wonder Woman, the Tick animated series had "American Maid", who was arguably more like a female version of Captain America than she was a Wonder Woman parody.
I'm gonna assume you're being silly.
This is all that needs to be said. The alternative to what they are doing that is being proposed, to make it visually continuous with The Original Series, isn't an option. It is not an option. It's a lovely thing to think about. There are fan films that do exactly this, if that is your jam. But if a TV series tried it it would be accepted by a handful of people, a portion of the fanbase. The rest of the fanbase would think the creators had lost their minds and that they had doomed televised Trek forever. Non die-hard Trek fans, people who just want to watch an entertaining show, would be unable to watch it. It would be an unacceptable product. It would fail, and it would deserve to fail. It would be like putting out a show in 4:3 standard def in a world where the bare minimum of television quality is widescreen HD. It isn't an option. You can keep talking about it but it. Can't. Happen.
I wouldn't say I complained about it, but way back, when there was a new show coming, but we knew nothing about it, I argued why Prime makes logical sense, and then went on to say why a non-prequel was a better idea partially because of that....something like BOBW or TMP or STIV, or even the dominion war, can't really happen in a prequel. There's a difference between knowing the heroes will save earth because they are heroes, and knowing they will save earth because we know it's still there to be in peril x years down the line. The other problem ENT runs into is that no one could be too successful, because we know that people still mention Kirk in the 24th century, but no one ever mentions Archer....it's the narrative equivalent of a cardboard set. Breaks the immersion a little by drawing attention to the fact it's fiction.
I was also not a fan of another prequel or inbetweenquel for this series, mostly because I anticipated the level of complaining and arguing it would cause because of the level of changes that were inevitable, partly because of the 'we know the ending' issue (in a global sense), and partly the bland awfulness of the prequel made so far. My preference would have been for either a post Nemesis series, or a Kelvinverse show contemporary with the movies.
But I'm over it, and on the Discovery train. Now they're doing a prequel again, there's every sign they're going to make this one good.
But I'm over it, and on the Discovery train. Now they're doing a prequel again, there's every sign they're going to make this one good.
Your point in the second half is again talking about adaptations rather than continuations of an existing story. Though you can argue that a reboot of a thing is just that...an adaptation. In terms of your arguments for recasting, well, while I agree with the sentiment, I heard about a feminist argument about why the Doctor should not be cast as a female actor....because then boys that have him as a role model lose one of the few role models who tends to be peaceful and solve problems without shooting them...which is a valid point. I also don't believe in the idea that you can on,y imagine yourself being one of these iconic characters if you share race or gender. Why not anything else? Should we recast everyone as ginger at some point because that's minority? Things like Lucy Liu in Elementary aren't what you describe, because the whole show is different. (She's probably my favourite Watson....none of the others made an impression on me, I really like all of Elementary, and it's amusing to see how far in an episode we get before she's got her knees out again even in the depths of winter. That last one isn't really a reason for liking the character...just an amusement, like seeing how often poor Johnny seems to get a cold while filming.) Adaptations you can do what you like with as long as you are doing it well (I rewrote Hamlet as SF on a station with a female Hamlet and an Android Yorick once.) because you are not changing a definitive article. What you seem to describe is bit like that, but becomes fiddly with the way modern narratives are done.
When I was a child, playing the games where we 'be' these iconic characters, race and gender didn't matter one jot...and he would it? Did my lack of a second heart preclude me from being the Doctor? Me not being black preclude me from being Jones from Police Academy? My mate being Tackleberry wasn't stopped by the fact he was black, and we had a girl Obi Wan and Han Solo before it was cool. I spent my teenage years in a black bomber jacket with Ace on the back despite being a bloke, there's documented female who fans who had a Pertwee cape. I read Anne of Green Gables, watched the show, and she's just as much a part of my personality as a result as any pale ginger girl in New England. Harriet the Spy was a massive role model when I was about 12. No one had to recast or rewrite them for me to identify with them. And characters become iconic over time, through exposure. We need more good female heroes, or heroes who aren't white American chaps (there's about two big ones that are British...Holmes and Bond. They are the only A list I can think of...and have no problems with them flipping race in an adaptation. Gender...well...I do t think I mind that either, but would rather see a female character like Bond rather than actual Bond. Oh. I have Lara Croft. Yay.) etc. But remembering being a child who only had limited contact with my father for a long time after my parents divorced, and remembering how important the Doctor in particular was to me at that time, or even Egon in Ghostbusters, I think politically motivated recasting without other creative choices involved is a mistake. Want the world needs is new better stories, not old stories with the serial numbers filed off.
Of the three characters you mention, 2 are adaptations, so aren't that. Gay Sulu is blink and you would miss it. I call ithe 'Uncle Sulu' scene because that's what it looks like. And he is a reboot and even then caused George Takei, of all people, to have an opinion similar to what I talk about.
Personally, I prefer Sisko and Janeway over Kirk anyway....the lack or representation in the stories is only half a problem, the other half is a lack of imagination in the audience, and a desire to reside in little boxes that mean we apparently aren't allowed to embrace a hero unless they look a bit like us as individuals. Which is a nonsense, and segregation rubbish. These characters are an idea first and last, and ideas don't have race or gender.
I can look up to Martin Luther King, and an African American is more than welcome to look up to say...James Hudson Taylor. And they are real people...no one needs to recast them.
I wouldn't mind a female Kirk or Cyborg Spock just like I don't mind the idea of a Black James Bond or a female Doctor. For years I use to think Denzel Washington should have been the new Superman and then later Will Smith. Only issue I have would be that I think it's easier to see those changes in a new line of continuity than it is to pretend like Shatner's Kirk is the same person as Rosario Dawson who I think would make for a awesome KIrk. Unless your doing a meta type of show which I admit I think would be a cool idea for a Trek show as well.
Jason
Jason
For one I don't want Jamie T Kirk, Captain of the Enterprise. There is a reason that Wonder Woman was the favorite of so many girls across generations, and not Supergirl. We like Supergirl. But she is a derivative copy of Superman. In the latest incarnation, Supergirls human alter ego is shy, a little goofy, clumsy, and nervously adjusts her nerd glasses, at her job for a publication that has an overbearing editor who is her boss and....ummm....remind you of anyone?
I like her and the show. But she can never be Wonder Woman. Brilliant detective Shirley K Holmes, Captain Jamie T Kirk, Lucy Skywalker, Harriet Potter...are you kidding? You can keep them.
I like her and the show. But she can never be Wonder Woman. Brilliant detective Shirley K Holmes, Captain Jamie T Kirk, Lucy Skywalker, Harriet Potter...are you kidding? You can keep them.
Only problem is we don't have a female equal to KIrk in the same way Superman and Supergirl are basically the same character with minor tinkering. Also I am not so sure Kirk being a male is the most essential thing about the character. I think it's being someone who loves his ship and is great friends with Spock and McCoy. Loves to have sex with aliens and is abit of cowboy who doesn't alway follow the rules.
A woman can do all those things as well. Anything lost in transition would be things that will forever be lost no matter who plays any future Kirk. We will never have another actor who can chew the scenery like Shatner or have the same chemistry he had with Nimoy and Kelly.
Jason
Similar threads
- Locked
