Finally Watching Discovery - Was I Supoosed to Hate This?

[feek61]

I'm not saying that those people can't be fans, just pointing out that it's generally people with a conservative mindset who completely miss the point of what star trek is about. I've been a fan for nearly 30 years and sadly Star Trek fans can be among the most closed-minded of people, especially when it comes to gay characters. Gay main characters have been featured in multiple tv shows since the 80's yet it took Star Trek 30 years to finally include a homosexual character in the main cast. Why do you think that is?

I think that may be the case in a VERY small number of fans but in general that is a sterootypical generality. In turn I think a very small number of people keep complaining about some unseen majority of fans having a problem with gay characters but that is not the reality either. The reason no homosexual character has been in a main cast of Star Trek is not because of the fans; it is because of corporate decisions and what they think will make the most money; nothing more.

 

[Trekkin]

people keep complaining about some unseen majority of fans having a problem with gay characters

No. That would require believing that ‘a majority of fans’ have a problem at all.

To put it bluntly: people are only complaining about the nonsensical rankings of racists/sexists/homophobes, because that’s the only complaints that they actually care about. People aren’t going to stop deriding them, just because the ‘But I don’t like the uniforms!’ crowd can’t stand not being talked about for five frigging seconds.

And all this ‘it’s a tiny minority!’ bullshit is ringing especially hollow, when there’s another active thread in this board right now about Youtube producers that have literally monetised fearmongering over DSC and ‘da...da...SJWS!’ Apparently there’s enough ‘tiny minorities’ to be a profitable business!

Not that ‘small’ numbers matter anyway. All it ever takes is ‘enough.’ The majority of people in the US never owned slaves. I guess that wasn’t a problem worth talking about!

Speaking of...

The reason no homosexual character has been in a main cast of Star Trek is not because of the fans; it is because of corporate decisions and what they think will make the most money; nothing more.

Two Questions:

1. How the flying fuck do you think ‘corporate decision makers’ make their money? Which ties in to...

2. Why exactly, do you think they decided that having all-straight casts guranteed more money?

 

[Mad Jack Wolfe]

I've been watching Trek since the 1960s. In all this time, I've given precisely zero fucks about whether character relationships are heterosexual or not. It's science fiction. If it takes the conjugation of five genders to make a baby, so what? Even if that's what it takes to make a decent orgasm, same difference. The purpose of science fiction is to have us imagine alternatives to what we know. If that's too much of a stretch for some, there's always Monday Night Football.

 

[Trekkin]

I've been watching Trek since the 1960s. In all this time, I've given precisely zero fucks about whether character relationships are heterosexual or not. It's science fiction. If it takes the conjugation of five genders to make a baby, so what? Even if that's what it takes to make a decent orgasm, same difference. The purpose of science fiction is to have us imagine alternatives to what we know. If that's too much of a stretch for some, there's always Monday Night Football.

Excuse me if I don’t find this as comforting as you think.

Lots of idiots have no problem with aliens doing ‘alien things.’ Back when it was announced Stamets and Culber were gay (or any time someone pushes for a trans character), morons started shouting “it should never get more explicit than The Outsider!”

Because they know what the writers of the show know: that’s fucking weak. It’s too abstract to change hearts and minds, or confront subject matter that people find ‘difficult.’ Then to add another layer, it actually makes it easier to dismiss gay/trans/whatever people as acting and being inhuman. Because you don’t get to choose how people read your metaphors.

So thanks fo a brand name associated with being progressive, you end up with both audiences. And a nicely profitable show. That’s never ‘stretched’ beyond the status quo in about...forty years of its existence.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

I think that may be the case in a VERY small number of fans but in general that is a sterootypical generality. In turn I think a very small number of people keep complaining about some unseen majority of fans having a problem with gay characters but that is not the reality either. The reason no homosexual character has been in a main cast of Star Trek is not because of the fans; it is because of corporate decisions and what they think will make the most money; nothing more.

I've made it pretty clear that the fans I am talking about are a minority. My point is that they are a very vocal minority. It is a reality, and I think it's naive and blinkered to think otherwise.

Yeah corporate decisions, specifically Rick Berman, are why we didn't get a gay character. But on the flipside of that, you just have to see how some fans reacted to 'Rejoined' to realise that the toxic minority has been with us a long time.

 

[Phoenix219]

Just think how cool it could have been, though, if they’d really let the crew (and the audience) warm to Lorca. Have him soften a little over the first two seasons, so that the crew couldn’t help but have a grudging respect for his approach. Then, once we’d all assumed that Isaacs is a permanent cast member, do the big reveal. Instead of being a mustache-twirling villain, Lorca could have been torn between two worlds before opting to carry out his original mission. That, to me, would be a heel-turn much more worthy of Isaacs’ abilities.

Yeah, thats my biggest problem with the whole twist - it took away all of the depth that the character and started to build over the year. I would have preferred they play it a bit more grey - a more troubled PU human and a more optimistic MU human might occupy the same space morally. He could have used the (guise of?) wanting to institute reforms and introduce freedom to the Terran Empire in his bid to gain Michael's help. They could have left the story hanging a bit, with him gaining power, and a few vague hints that he is taking over and leading the path to the original Mirror Mirror - show that he starting development of the Tantalus device, or show him taking a Captains Woman as a consort - that his revolution was not exactly what it was cracked up to be....

Leaving the possibility open for a Fairest of them All style Mirror Mirror sequel where Mirror Spock battles Lorca post Mirror Mirror would have been nice. They could have kept Lorca as a recurring character for years, before ending with a scenario like I described above, or made a Mirror Universe miniseries spinoff.

 

[Phoenix219]

They've already referenced Archer and the NX-01. They won't remove the ENT retcon. Most likely, they'll just not refer to it. Or we'll find out AshVoq is another way to make TOS Klingons. Or at least secret agents like Darvin.

But they can remove The silly retcon. Ash/Voq makes it clear if the Augments are around, they do not look human. Darvin was made the same ways as Ash, this was confirmed by the folks in charge on Trek Talk. So yes, they can leave that stupid retcon, but they can not leave them looking human.

Didn't Darvin read as Klingon biologically?

Either way, Augments have nothing to do with Ash/Voq, because the virus would not have made him look like a *specific* human, or give him *memories,* nor help in infiltrating the Federation. Two totally different issues that have nothing to do with each other.

Voq as an Augment would still look terrifying, and not at all like a Star Fleet officer.....

 

[fireproof78]

Yeah corporate decisions, specifically Rick Berman, are why we didn't get a gay character.

Sadly, that was a carry over from GR and his lawyer in the early seasons.

 

[feek61]

I've made it pretty clear that the fans I am talking about are a minority. My point is that they are a very vocal minority. It is a reality, and I think it's naive and blinkered to think otherwise.

Yeah corporate decisions, specifically Rick Berman, are why we didn't get a gay character. But on the flipside of that, you just have to see how some fans reacted to 'Rejoined' to realise that the toxic minority has been with us a long time.

I agree they are a PITA minority which sucks for everyone else. I believe from memory that it was GR who didn't want a gay character but I would have to go back and research that; I know I read it a while back.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't see the post above before I mentioned GR but I am sure that is correct.

 

[Greg Cox]

I have no objection to that. I just think it's an unreasonable knock on the show. It's like saying TOS was shit because we didn't see Lt. Leslie and Lt. Hadley more.

And, let's be honest, how much did we really learn about, say, Uhura or Sulu during the first season of TOS . . . or even the entire run of the original series?

Trek fans who grew up on the latter-day series expect all TREK series to be an ensemble show, but that's not how STAR TREK started out and there's no rule that says that any new Trek show has to emulate TNG or DS9 in that regard.

 

[Vger23]

And, let's be honest, how much did we really learn about, say, Uhura or Sulu during the first season of TOS . . . or even the entire run of the original series?

Trek fans who grew up on the latter-day series expect all TREK series to be an ensemble show, but that's not how STAR TREK started out and there's no rule that says that any new Trek show has to emulate TNG or DS9 in that regard.

Absolutely correct, I agree. And, in fairness...DSC actually did have a fairly good-sized cast.

PRIMARY CHARACTERS:
Burnham
Lorca
Saru
Tilly
Stamets
Tyler

SECONDARY CHARACTERS:
Georgiou
Voq
L'Rell
Cornwell
Sarek
Culber
Kol
Landry
Mudd

BACKGROUND / SUPPORTING CHARACTERS
Terral
Ariam
Detmer
Bryce
Owosekun
etc

The unique thing that DSC did was not have every prominently visible bridge crew member thought of as a "primary" or even "secondary" character. I have no objection to them doing that, either. While I too would like to learn more about some of Discovery's bridge crew, it in no way surfaces as a reason for me to be critical of the show. The show was about the primary characters, regardless of their postings aboard the ship...and you didn't have the time or the luxury to detract from the main story and characters to learn about Owosekun. I just wasn't going to happen...nor did it need to in any way.

 

[Greg Cox]

Exactly. The idea that we need bios, backstories, and character arcs for the background characters on the bridge is a relatively "new" one--and hardly mandatory.

Scotty and Sulu and Uhura feel like fully-fleshed characters to us now, because of bits of business accumulating over two TV series, six movies, and decades of books, comics, games, etc. But go back and look at the credits for TOS; they're not even listed as regulars in Season One.

Heck, Detmer has arguably already gotten more backstory than Uhura ever did. Point being, that it's not "wrong" that DISCO didn't treat the bridge crew as key members of the "ensemble" yet. The Berman-era approach is not the only correct approach to STAR TREK.

 

[Lord Garth]

The Berman-era approach is not the only correct approach to STAR TREK.

This cannot be emphasized enough.

 

[Rahul]

Absolutely correct, I agree. And, in fairness...DSC actually did have a fairly good-sized cast.

The unique thing that DSC did was not have every prominently visible bridge crew member thought of as a "primary" or even "secondary" character. I have no objection to them doing that, either. While I too would like to learn more about some of Discovery's bridge crew, it in no way surfaces as a reason for me to be critical of the show. The show was about the primary characters, regardless of their postings aboard the ship...and you didn't have the time or the luxury to detract from the main story and characters to learn about Owosekun. I just wasn't going to happen...nor did it need to in any way.

Exactly. The idea that we need bios, backstories, and character arcs for the background characters on the bridge is a relatively "new" one--and hardly mandatory.

Scotty and Sulu and Uhura feel like fully-fleshed characters to us now, because of bits of business accumulating over two TV series, six movies, and decades of books, comics, games, etc. But go back and look at the credits for TOS; they're not even listed as regulars in Season One.

Heck, Detmer has arguably already gotten more backstory than Uhura ever did. Point being, that it's not "wrong" that DISCO didn't treat the bridge crew as key members of the "ensemble" yet. The Berman-era approach is not the only correct approach to STAR TREK.

I think the big failure of DIS was that, despite it's bridge crew being tertiary characters at best - they still treated them like a regular bridge crew during important scenes!

Like, when Checkhov or Tuvok were spouting plot relevant lines ("shields at x percent, battlecruiser ahead"), they already were introduced as semi-POV characters, and the bridge as the focus of the show.

On DIS, we had battle scenes with all the main cast (Burnham, Tilly, Stamets, ....) completely out of the picture, and only these then-unnamed bridge crew (and shady Lorca) on the bridge doing the traditional Star Trek stuff. That felt off, because we knew none of these people, and it felt like the intro to a fan-film. They also missed the GREAT opportunity to have a "traditional" battle-scene play out from a lower-decks perspective: Imagine Burnham and Tilly being in their quarter, hearing the bridge crew through comm giving their battle instructions, hearing the impacts, but without being able to contribute anything own to the battle, their lifes depending upon it nonetheless? That would have been great drama!

Instead, the writers couldn't resist doing their "Star Trek"-stuff, and had the entire battle play out on the bridge-POV, even though none of the main characters were present.

 

[fireproof78]

I loved that scene. Nothing felt off to me. One of the best scenes in that episode, one that I revisit the most, and I don't care that I didn't know everyone's names. They are part of the crew so I care.

 

[Vger23]

I think the big failure of DIS was that, despite it's bridge crew being tertiary characters at best - they still treated them like a regular bridge crew during important scenes!

Like, when Checkhov or Tuvok were spouting plot relevant lines ("shields at x percent, battlecruiser ahead"), they already were introduced as semi-POV characters, and the bridge as the focus of the show.

On DIS, we had battle scenes with all the main cast (Burnham, Tilly, Stamets, ....) completely out of the picture, and only these then-unnamed bridge crew (and shady Lorca) on the bridge doing the traditional Star Trek stuff. That felt off, because we knew none of these people, and it felt like the intro to a fan-film. They also missed the GREAT opportunity to have a "traditional" battle-scene play out from a lower-decks perspective: Imagine Burnham and Tilly being in their quarter, hearing the bridge crew through comm giving their battle instructions, hearing the impacts, but without being able to contribute anything own to the battle, their lifes depending upon it nonetheless? That would have been great drama!

Instead, the writers couldn't resist doing their "Star Trek"-stuff, and had the entire battle play out on the bridge-POV, even though none of the main characters were present.

I don't see why that has to be viewed as a failure. On the contrary, DSC went out of the way to make these people interesting despite their complete irrelevancy to the story. And it obviously worked. I view that as a tremendous success.

 

[Vger23]

This cannot be emphasized enough.

Well, and I think what people miss is that this doesn't have to be a binary thing. Just because we agree that 90's Trek isn't the only way to do the franchise...doesn't mean there's anything wrong with that or that we're against it...it just means that that different approaches can be a massive breath of fresh air.

There's plenty of room (welcome room) for different approaches.

 

[Greg Cox]

Well, and I think what people miss is that this doesn't have to be a binary thing. Just because we agree that 90's Trek isn't the only way to do the franchise...doesn't mean there's anything wrong with that or that we're against it...it just means that that different approaches can be a massive breath of fresh air.

There's plenty of room (welcome room) for different approaches.

Exactly. Not bashing 90s Trek here (even though I'm a shameless TOS partisan at heart). Just questioning the idea that the 90s approach is the only proper way to do Trek and that newer shows and movies area somehow getting it wrong if they don't emulate TNG and its kin.

 

[fireproof78]

Exactly. Not bashing 90s Trek here (even though I'm a shameless TOS partisan at heart). Just questioning the idea that the 90s approach is the only proper way to do Trek and that newer shows and movies area somehow getting it wrong if they don't emulate TNG and its kin.

It's very black and white thinking. That often doesn't bode well.

 

[Vger23]

Exactly. Not bashing 90s Trek here (even though I'm a shameless TOS partisan at heart). Just questioning the idea that the 90s approach is the only proper way to do Trek and that newer shows and movies area somehow getting it wrong if they don't emulate TNG and its kin.

The hardest thing for some fans, I think, is that Trek was basically under the same producers and designers from 1987 through 2004 and there was even a lot of consistency in the writing room. So the mistaken impression is that the Bergman era is the absolute template. Simply because there was so much of it in that mold, it seems

However, the reality is that it got ponderously stale, especially with series overlap and feature films overlapping as well.

There really is no choice but to continue to take different and new approaches to things (Kelvin Trek, CBSAA Trek, etc. )