This.
Entertainment Weekly Cover Story (7/28)
- Thread starter JoeP
- Start date
"Logic? My God, the man's talking about logic! We're talking about universal armageddon!"
"My God, Bones, what have I done?"
"My God, man, drilling holes in his head's not the answer. The artery must be repaired!"
"What does God need with a starship?"
"My God, that's a big ship."
"My God, Bones, what have I done?"
"My God, man, drilling holes in his head's not the answer. The artery must be repaired!"
"What does God need with a starship?"
"My God, that's a big ship."
You guys are cruel. She's a nice person. Having her jump into the firepit of hell that this place can be at times is mean.
She's posted here before. Well, maybe not this forum, but she's been to Treklit. So how much worse can this forum be?
Ah well, whatever. We survived "Who Watches the Watchers", we can survive this.
Last edited:
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.
But I also agree with David Mack -- we don't know jack shit about the context of the incident the EW writer describes, nor anything about the big picture that's motivating Beyer's creative decisions or those of the rest of the writers, and we shouldn't blow something as minor as that little context-less anecdote out of proportion.
Let's wait to actually watch the show before we start condemning every little thing in it, eh?
But I also agree with David Mack -- we don't know jack shit about the context of the incident the EW writer describes, nor anything about the big picture that's motivating Beyer's creative decisions or those of the rest of the writers, and we shouldn't blow something as minor as that little context-less anecdote out of proportion.
Let's wait to actually watch the show before we start condemning every little thing in it, eh?
I try to stay positive about the show but the reaction to this one moment on set is...way out of proportion, IMHO. When I read the story I cringed a few seconds, unsure of what to make of Kristin Beyer's reaction to the ad-lib. But I shrugged my shoulders and was, on the whole, really excited about what I read.
I don't know folks, I think we're overreacting a bit here. We'll probably forget about this by September. (Heck, we might forget about it by next week.)
I don't know folks, I think we're overreacting a bit here. We'll probably forget about this by September. (Heck, we might forget about it by next week.)
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.
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.
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.
Probably by tomorrow
I have actually said several times on this board that I believe Picard portrays humans and the Federation in a way that is not realistic / accurate and it is actually part of his character. It is one of the reasons I like his character less and less as time moves on. The more you think about it, and the more you examine the evidence, it does actually appear that much of the 24th century "utopian idealism" comes straight from Picard's imagination and is not necessarily true or accurate.
Interesting theory, Huh?
Totally
^ Not so much somebody saying it...more like, not being allowed to say it.
The EW writer claims that Beyer cites a non-religious humanity as the reason Issac's character would not say "For God's sake." I am responding to that idea, in the abstract, in my opening paragraph, before moving on to my support for David Mack's assertion that we don't actually understand the context of the incident described and should not jump to conclusions about it.
I am not at liberty to explain the backstory and context due to a non-disclosure agreement. But I assure you, she did not make this decision in a vacuum, or out of spite. It has a valid creative rationale.
And this is why fans bitch about canon.
Which takes place BEFORE TOS.
And who gets to choose which part of canon stays and goes? Ditching canon is just going to piss people off.
Similar threads
