Entertainment Weekly Cover Story (7/28)

[JD]

It wasn't a comment, it was a directive from a producer to one of the stars of the show.

^^^
Don't bring actual TOS dialog from TOS - "Bread and Circuses" into this - it just makes the former ST:VOY writer who gave that particular direction look worse...oh, wait...

Just to clear up a couple things about Kirsten Beyer, first of all she's not producer, she's just a writer, and she's not a former Voy writer, she's the current writer of the seriously awesome Voyager Relaunch novels, which are vastly superior to the majority of the show's episodes. I'm a HUGE fan of her books, and her being hired was one of the first things to really raise my confidence in DSC. David Mack is also the author of the first DSC novel, and I believe has both read at least the pilot script and is working one on one with Ms. Beyer. At this point both of them have more than earned my trust when it comes to Trek, so I'm more than happy to give her the benefit of the doubt in this situation, and to take David at his word if he says there's more to it than we know.

So, has anyone picked up the actual issue yet?

 

[Markonian]

Can't find the post but David Mack explained it (as much as NDA allows) in the thread about this topic that Lorca won't reference deities because of his character. Sorry I can't find it.

 

[mattyhugh]

Unless what the EW writer quoted is completely wrong, then they need to print a corrected version. They used direct quotes for the exchange between Isaacs and Beyer.

Were you there? If so, I'd love for you to elaborate on the actual exchange.

Here is what is from the EW story, in TrekToday. No, it isn't a slam on religion, but it sure looks like a misinterpretation of a so-called Vision:
https://www.trektoday.com/content/2017/07/more-star-trek-discovery-pictures/

No I wasn't there.
I just think this discussion is irrelevant. I find the extreme criticques tireing. Mountain out of mole hill situation here. Let's just see how DSC plays out and then for better or worse we can debate the merits of the work. Obsessing over one pull quote or make up change seems silly when we haven't seen the breadth of the work. But it's a message board, so I shouldn't expect any different. *shrugs*

I don't think my catty/sacarsitc post helped. Mea Culpa.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

No I wasn't there.
I just think this discussion is irrelevant. I find the extreme criticques tireing. Mountain out of mole hill situation here. Let's just see how DSC plays out and then for better or worse we can debate the merits of the work. Obsessing over one pull quote or make up change seems silly when we haven't seen the breadth of the work. But it's a message board, so I shouldn't expect any different. *shrugs*

I don't think my catty/sacarsitc post helped. Mea Culpa.

No, I agree with you about seeing how the series is when it airs (or streams, lol!)

What alarmed me was that the way the article has it, directly recounting that he can't say "God" is because Gene's Vision doesn't allow that.

But overall, I'm loving what I'm seeing, the cast is perfect and I'm looking forward to the finished product, be it good or bad! It's Star Trek, so I will always watch and see if it works for me!

 

[starmike]

I'm not making a huge deal out of it, but it does bug me a tad, for reasons I'm not going to get into.

 

[BillJ]

It wouldn't bug me if it was some sort of character trait, a man that turns away from his faith. It bothers me that falls under the "Gene's Vision" non-sense. The exchange pretty much says that is the reason.

One of the things that bothered me about TNG was that people didn't really act like people that I recognize.

 

[JD]

People 300 years from now would probably act pretty differently from how we act today. I'm pretty sure people in the 1700s probably acted very differently from how we act today.

 

[BillJ]

People 300 years from now would probably act pretty differently from how we act today. I'm pretty sure people in the 1700s probably acted very differently from how we act today.

Problem being, people three hundred years from now aren't watching Discovery, we are in the here-and-now.

 

[mattyhugh]

People 300 years from now would probably act pretty differently from how we act today. I'm pretty sure people in the 1700s probably acted very differently from how we act today.

Naw, Alexander Hamilton could rap with best of them.

 

[starmike]

People 300 years from now would probably act pretty differently from how we act today. I'm pretty sure people in the 1700s probably acted very differently from how we act today.

That doesn't make very compelling television.

 

[Tenacity]

I find the extreme criticques tireing.

Perhaps you should stop reading them?

“Beyer explains that Star Trek is creator Gene Roddenberry‘s vision of a science-driven 23rd-century future where religion basically no longer exists.

Apparently Beyer has never seen TOS.

 

[mattyhugh]

Perhaps you should stop reading them?.

You're right. I should.
What I meant to say was the Enterprise shouldn't be hauling garbage. What I meant to say was that it should be hauled away AS garbage!

 

[Longinus]

Ah well, whatever. We survived "Who Watches the Watchers", we can survive this.

You mean one of the best Star Trek episodes ever?

 

[Longinus]

I don't much like the idea that Humans don't practice religions in the universe of Star Trek. Personally, I want to see a Star Trek Earth that's full of Jewish people, and Muslims, and Hindus, and atheists, and Protestants, and Catholics, and Buddhists, agnostics, and Bahá'ís, and Jains, and Sikhs, and Taoists, and Neo-Pagans, and traditional indigenous religious practitioners, and so on and so on. In a fictional future where there is no religion, that raises uncomfortable questions about what has happened to the religious minorities of the world. So I hope that we eventually see Star Trek: Discovery depicting a humanity that is religiously pluralistic and egalitarian.

I kinda hope that in future people would have finally forgotten silly bronze age superstitions.

 

[Mudd]

You mean one of the best Star Trek episodes ever?

No, he's referring to "Who Watches The Watchers."

 

[Longinus]

As a non-religious person, I have to say this notion that humanity is secular in the future is wrong. There are plenty of examples of humans still practicing religions, even in the 24th century, despite Picard's claim to the contrary. Christianity in particular is definitely still around, we see a church on TNG in Sub Rosa, and people make the sign of the cross in that same episode. On DS9 Kassidy Yates mentions her mother is a practicing Christian. It's also clear Native Americans still practice their spiritual beliefs in the future, and Hindu holidays are observed on the Enterprise D. Prior to the 24th century, Kirk himself admitted to worshipping a god, and Dr. Phlox mentioned plenty of religious practices rituals and services he witnessed while on Earth.

Sub Rosa is a great example of 'religion' in Federation. They use religious trappings and customs, but in the prayer reference to God and supernatural are replaced with secular elements. "Sure and certain hope that her memory will be kept alive within us all" instead of "sure and certain hope of the Resurrection unto eternal life."

As for DS9, that was Moore shoehorning religion in Trek. I really didn't like that. YMMW.

So really, it's only Picard who seems to think future humanity is secular, with plenty of evidence to the contrary. Hmm, Picard is the only one who definitively refers to the Prime Universe's Federation Starfleet as non-military. I'm beginning to think he might actually be a delusional individual.

I don't want to start an argument on what is canon and how prevalent religions 'really' are in the Federation. Truth is that there are a lot of different writers who have depicted things differently in different times, and same goes for other aspects of that society too. But personally I find Picard's take of the future of the humanity compelling, and I'd prefer if the Federation was presented in that light in Star Trek. Again, YMMW.

 

[CorporalClegg]

It wouldn't bug me if it was some sort of character trait, a man that turns away from his faith. It bothers me that falls under the "Gene's Vision" non-sense. The exchange pretty much says that is the reason.

One of the things that bothered me about TNG was that people didn't really act like people that I recognize.

RIghto.

 

[Mudd]

There is evidence that traditional institutional religious practice is on the wane in many cultures right now.

There is no persuasive evidence that rationality and any kind of emotional equanimity are in ascendance. Rather the opposite.

The idea that a fictional portrayal of people in the future ought to be tailored to some narrow, ideologically-based fantasy of "how folks ought to be to please us" is just stupid.

Make 'em as much like people as commercial entertainment allows.

 

[BillJ]

I guess what I want, what I cherished, about Star Trek simply isn't possible in the here-and-now. The original Star Trek was weird, wild and fun, sparking my imagination for decades. It was unique for a really long time to me.

Politics and war stories, I can get those pretty much anywhere on TV now. It is seemingly just being put in a Star Trek wrapper for Discovery. Heck, we've already trudged down that path in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. I do find it odd that "God" is somehow offensive and has no place in Roddenberry's vision, yet violence will be front and center from the look of the trailers.

I will watch Discovery, I really want to like it. But, at this point, I'm just not sure.

 

[Tuskin38]

yet violence will be front and center from the look of the trailers.

Violence is a last resort. Not everyone they encounter will be peaceful.