I believe you've been told before not to talk about your ignored list or who is on it. Please stop or it's going to result in an infraction.
Spoilers Dr. Hugh Culber Despite Yourself Spoilers!
- Thread starter Kirk the Jerk
- Start date
Yes. Some people are trying way too hard to make this about more than just an in-universe character storyline.
Nobody is saying that. However, it is entirely valid to point out that gay characters, especially those who actually engage in same sex activity on screen, have a disproportionate tendency to die, and it's not only disappointing that a show which touted its diversity as a selling point went to that well, it's really regrettable that the producers openly admit knowing about that trope and its impact but doing it anyway, saying it was ok because they "didn't mean it that way". That's pretty short sighted, especially for a gay writer.
Star Trek had its first gay couple and they were natural, believable, and brilliant. And then they killed it off before season 1 was even over. However much you hate criticism of the show, that's a valid point to make.
A sci-fi resurrection/reset button may well be in Culber's future but that doesn't change that this episode contained the brutal murder of yet another gay character on TV, and adds the element that Discovery isn't sticking to another of its selling points, 'anyone can die'.
It may be a disappointing development, I agree. I had just said, the same freaking day (jinxed it) that the show aired, that I wanted to see Culber more. So I'm bummed too. I stared at the screen with my jaw on the floor.
But don't kid yourself that there are people attempting to discredit the show saying that the character was killed off primarily because of his sexual orientation, thereby making it.a social issue, and not just a complaint about a writing choice. . There are enough folks who are motivated to pull any reason possible to make the show look bad.
THAT's what I'm arguing against.
It's always disappointing when a beloved character dies. Regardless of sexual orientation.
But right now we have NO IDEA how this development is meant to affect the story. Again, as I've said repeatedly, I recommend patience before we allow disappointment in the immediate development to taint our perceptions. I have faith that the showrunners, who handled the Stamets/Culber relationship extremely maturely (compared to any other Trek relationship for sure) and highly effectively are going to make the death have meaning.
It may suck, and be emotional, but that's drama.
I don't hate criticism of the show, I hate manufactured rationales for hating the show. There is a difference. Just because I go after criticism with a passion at times doesn't invalidate it. It's good debate, nothing more.
Yes, her name was 7 of 9.
We have seen other high billed characters die on discovery and no doubt there will be more.
Stamets and culber are two of very few characters the audience is invested in which is my only complaint to killing off culber.
But
Lgbt characters shouldnt get "plot armour" if nobody else has it, THAT would be insulting.
Culber is likely coming back anyway but the after effects of his death on stamets could have real emotion and consiquences which could have been great for the narrative.
In story when a character dies and the audience thinks 'Why is she running up to the roof top?? He's going to get her!' Or 'What is she doing? She's going to try and fight this big monster with a prodding stick!??!' Or 'He's all alone with that dangerous creep!'
It's not really meaningful when someone's a sitting duck.
It's not really meaningful when someone's a sitting duck.
A
Amaris
Guest
I've been reading (the real) Stamets book, and you may not be far off about "magic" mushrooms.
No, she kills gays.
What baffles me is that we almost never see anyone else in sick bay. If he's not CMO, where are the nurses, other doctors, etc...one wouldn't think sick bay would be this sprawling area of many rooms....didn't Enterprise have like one room (that we saw all the time) with 4-6 beds in it; not one or two beds per area that we keep seeing on Discovery.
Hope something happens to bring him back as he was a likable character.
Hope something happens to bring him back as he was a likable character.
The force controlling Tyler's split personality is Klingon, so knocking him out would have been too lenient for that personality.
totally off topic- When did white people become translucent?
It was unclear to me if "Voq" snapped his neck. It seemed like it could have just been an instinctive "flight or fight" response built into his conditioning which kicked in when exposed to extreme stress.
Huh?
And Bones - Shore Leave
white is a colour just ask Dulux or Caucasians and some Asian people share lack of melanin
Caucasian is a dumb term based upon late 19th/early 20th century race science, when it was believed that "race" formed in the Caucasus mountains and spread out. It's fallen out of favor, which is good, because the other terms from that time period (Negroid, Mongoloid, etc) are no longer used.
White is of course silly as well. But no one is going to use the proper genetic term (West Eurasian - which also includes people from the Middle East/North Africa, and mostly South Asia). "White" as it is understood is a social construct within America, and it always has been. Much as no "black" people are truly black, and many are very light shades of brown or even have similar skin tones to "white" people.
I agree that it is a silly term.
Which is why I find the term POC ridiculous, every human being has a skin tone, even if they carry the albino gene.
Last edited:
This - 'people of colour', 'black' 'white', are sociopolitical, not literal descriptive terms. POC is a way of succinctly saying 'not white' without defining their ethnicity by the absence of whiteness.
'Caucasian' is just wrong. Firstly, it's a term that was based on phrenology, not skin tone, so using it to mean 'white' is inaccurate, and secondly it is, as you point out, based in 'science' from the eugenics era (no, not that one, nerds).
