If This Series Took Place In The Early 2200s......

[Kane_Steel]

You made the claim. Back it up.

I'm not playing this game. You know STD has had divisive reception. A simple Youtube or Google search will show that.

A character no one knew. Once again, which film of the three did the worst?

So Star Trek can only be white dudes in perpetuity until the end of time?

Doesn't matter if she's known or not. Your point was that male leads is what supposedly caused Beyond to fail, when that's not even true (Jaylah was marketed as a main lead alongside Kirk and Spock). Urban was barely present in the marketing. You are grasping at straws.

And with regards to your last statement, you're getting really silly and triggered over nothing. I never made such an extreme claim.

 

[Campe]

STD, however, does not look like it belongs alongside the Pike era of Trek.

Pike era? You mean episode? A one off that could be easily ignored? Please note, I love The Cage. And I really do like the aesthetic presented in that episode. You’re not wrong. However, there are callbacks in Discovery’s design to The Cage, particularly in the coloring. Not of the computer graphics, but the set itself. I see your point about the Kelvin working in the Prime design and it should because it’s technically from the Prime Timeline.

Overall, while I see all that you’re saying, I’m trying not to let those details bother me. At the end of the day, as I said before, this is an attempt to create a world in the 2250s based on what we have now in 2017. It’s choosing holograms over dot matrix printouts. It’s choosing big transparent screens with tons of data and information over flashy lights that really don’t mean too much of anything.

I understand why that can be startling if one were to watch it in chronological order, BUT I also try to remember the opening to MST3K: “Just repeat to yourself it’s just a show. I SHOULD REALLY JUST RELAX!” But of course, that is up to the viewer too, to see if they would be willing to follow, what I consider to be, very sound advice.

 

[USS Triumphant]

So Star Trek can only be white dudes in perpetuity until the end of time?

But what of Lazarus? But what... of Lazarus?

 

[Nerys Myk]

But what of Lazarus? But what... of Lazarus?

White Dude. Dudes?

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

White Dude. Dudes?

Yeah, but one of them was bat-shit crazy. That's some sort of diversity....no?

 

[Phoenix219]

It was an adaptation of a prior work. One heck of a huge difference, one that elevated a minority female into Big Three status. Ever wonder why Beyond stumbled at the box office as badly as it did? Could be they went back to being all white dudes at the center of the story.



You brought it up, it is up to you to provide all these divisive decisions that have been made.

I always figured it was the disappointment of the second movie, the poor plotting, cheesy ending, stupid twists and retreads and nonsensical scenes, that turned off some of the newer and more mainstream fans, and kept them from caring about the next movie in the series. I wouldn't blame Beyond - the decision was made *before* they saw it. This is squarely at the feet of STID.

 

[lawman]

I just mentioned it's one of the biggest complaints about the series. Go to any YT comment section where the dislike ratio for STD is high and the 'forced diversity' comments and 'anti-Trump agenda' comments are prevalent.

It's not surprising, STD has made some divisive decisions.

I literally had no idea what you were referring to WRT "YT comments." Someone else mentioned "Young Turks" and I thought "wait, that's a liberal thing, it can't be what he meant." Finally you mentioned YouTube... and in response to that I thought "wait, who on god's green earth looks at YouTube for coherent comments about anything?"

Seriously, YouTube comments sections are a garbage fire. They're full of trolls and drive-by posters practically waving red flags proclaiming "I'm an idiot." They make your average 8th-grade homeroom look like a hotbed of sophistication. It surprises me not an iota that they would be full of (A) people who don't like or understand Star Trek, and worse, (B) people who support Donald Trump. But why should anyone care?

I'm not playing this game. You know STD has had divisive reception. A simple Youtube or Google search will show that.

There's an important distinction between having a divisive reception (which the discussions here indicate well enough), and making divisive decisions in the storytelling, particularly political ones, which is what you implied earlier. I'd be genuinely curious what people think some of the latter are, assuming there are examples available that rise above the level of the average bumper sticker or internet meme.

 

[CorporalClegg]

It's all the same.

Exactly so.

 

[Greg Cox]

Bottom line: TOS (including "The Cage") looked futuristic in the 1960s, but looks less so today. Hell, the average smartphone has a more sophisticated interface than the control panels on Kirk's Enterprise. So, yes, they've upgraded the tech and art direction to make it look more futuristic to modern audiences. And we should just engage our willing suspension of disbelief and go with it, just like we did when the Klingons stopped being swarthy guys in greasepaint with Fu Manchu mustaches.

In other words,they have holographic displays and touch-screens for the same reason that the female officers aren't wearing mini-skirts and beehive hairdos. Because it's not 1966 anymore . . . and Star Trek is not supposed to be a period piece.

Works for me.