^^^
Not so, there have been a few uniquely TOS sound effects used in spots. So 'Nothing' is going a bit far here.
Lt.Kyle
- Thread starter Attentiveluke
- Start date
Not so, there have been a few uniquely TOS sound effects used in spots. So 'Nothing' is going a bit far here.
It could be. And it had incongruences as well.
None of that made it less Star Trek, or less a part of the larger story. What has happened now is everything requires an explanation, instead of rolling with changes that occur. Recasting Saavik? Needs an explanation? Make up changes? Needs an explanation.
I get it. We all have our threshold of change that is tolerable but the standard has reached absurd levels in the same of excluding items that don't meet the standard. That's the exact opposite of what Trek was to be about.
It's absurd.
Bullshit. You're setting up straw man arguments involving absurd hypotheticals that they haven't attempted and are extremely unlikely ever to attempt, barring scenarios such as "All Good Things..." when the Enterprise-D of a possible future in fact did have three nacelles or something like Spock catching a disease. Your presumed reactions of fans to absurd hypotheticals bear no relation to how fans are actually reacting to what's occurring in reality.
Nah it started in TOS.
Sure DS9 had some issues as well. Every Trek has.
One of my favorite scenes from DS9. I know it's out there but it was very well done...loved when they did stand alone eps like this...
Forget just Kyle, did anyone else find it odd the female navigator was named Mitchell? The show clearly has minor TOS/TAS characters on the brain -- M'Benga, T'Pring, Sam Kirk, April. I can't figure out what the intent is here, and that confusion pulls me out of it a little. This is obviously a tiny nitpick, but if you're going to drop in easter egg names, try to do it in a way that isn't so all over the place.
And among TOS's heavily white crew, those episodes are also filled with intriguing POC characters that have a few lines in one ep and then are never seen again. If they want easter eggs and diversity at the same time, great, there are abundant characters to resurrect, lets bring back some of them!
But, live action streaming Trek has always had such bizarre ideas about continuity. I will never forget some weird interview during Disco season 1 where they were patting themselves on the back for giving the Klingons a red transporter beam, as (apparently) previously established, whereas I am baffled as to why you would think transporter beam coloring is relevant when they were revamping everything else about the Klingons.
And among TOS's heavily white crew, those episodes are also filled with intriguing POC characters that have a few lines in one ep and then are never seen again. If they want easter eggs and diversity at the same time, great, there are abundant characters to resurrect, lets bring back some of them!
But, live action streaming Trek has always had such bizarre ideas about continuity. I will never forget some weird interview during Disco season 1 where they were patting themselves on the back for giving the Klingons a red transporter beam, as (apparently) previously established, whereas I am baffled as to why you would think transporter beam coloring is relevant when they were revamping everything else about the Klingons.
That scene was offensive. I had a really tough time with some of the portrayals of people with mental illness in Trek. That being one of them.
It goes to show that what is considered "important" is very much mutable. Us as fans put way more weight in to one group of things, while showrunners emphasis a lot more, while artists still more.
We're never going to agree as to what makes it great.
Haha. Not BS. You wont answer it. Why?? Why is it ok to change a characters ethnicity and not how many nacelles a ship may have???. The hypocrisy of some of you is ASTOUNDING. What if they had made Uhura Arabic??? Would you have been ok with that??? Huh huh???
Either answer honestly or dont answer at all.
You know what...? ..You dont have to answer. Because I know it would not sit well with you....
Wait, that scene was offensive? Characters enjoying themselves was offensive?!? Julian displayed ethical issues elsewhere in the episode, but that particular scene where they are playfully expressing their creativity is offensive??? Whatever!
Offensive?? Smh...
Wait, that scene was offensive? Characters enjoying themselves was offensive?!? Julian displayed ethical issues elsewhere in the episode, but that particular scene where they are playfully expressing their creativity is offensive??? Whatever!
Haha. After your last post to me you hit with this. Kudos. We agree on something...
That's mighty presumptuous, considering that I have been as critical of some changes as I have been welcoming of others.
My dislike of the DISCOPRISE has been on record for years.
The whole presentation of those characters is rough to me. Perhaps "offensive" is the wrong word, but it sits wrongly with me.Wait, that scene was offensive? Characters enjoying themselves was offensive?!? Julian displayed ethical issues elsewhere in the episode, but that particular scene where they are playfully expressing their creativity is offensive??? Whatever!
Laugh all you want. Apparently IDIC only applies when people agree. SMH
Haha. Well the exterior of the Discovery was one thing they got correct. The ridiculous turnolift interior as well as the spore drive...were what turned me off the ship...
Well it's a very well liked scene. Sure the characters were introduced with their respective mental issues. But than as you get to know them you see they are WAY more than that. This scene they all worked in harmony and it was very well done.
To you.
See, this is the thing, the scene still doesn't work for me. Just like other things don't work for you. It's a funny old world when it comes down to it. So going "SMH" doesn't show me anything but we have different sensibilities.
DS9 did a lot of things right. Those characters were not one of them. Same with every other Star Trek series out there, including the new ones.
Yes, the exterior of the DISCO was fine. It's a reasonable interpretation of the Adams/McQuarrie Enterprise concept.
The Turbolift Funhouse was indeed ridiculous. I think there's pretty broad agreement on that.
Just to be clear, by DISCOPRISE it is meant the Enterprise as she appears on DISCO. It has numerous problems, and still does in the version for SNW, as far as I'm concerned. But given the number of things that went right in the first episode of SNW, it's nowhere near a show-stopper.
To you.
See, this is the thing, the scene still doesn't work for me. Just like other things don't work for you. It's a funny old world when it comes down to it. So going "SMH" doesn't show me anything but we have different sensibilities.
DS9 did a lot of things right. Those characters were not one of them. Same with every other Star Trek series out there, including the new ones.
That's what debate is all about. But to say something is offensive and not provide why its offensive. People will respond with SMH. Or at least I will.
It's ok not to like the scene.
1) Repeat after me: The Kyles are. Separate characters. With similar names. The Kyles are. Separate characters. With similar names.
2) In a society with nigh-infinite resources, it's not actually a continuity error if a ship gets refit.
3) When making a new adaptation that does not need to maintain strict continuity with older versions of a story, changing a character's ethnicity from white to non-white is generally (not universally, but generally) acceptable because doing so fights against the unconscious bias that many white people have that whiteness is the default setting for the human race and because it provides greater representation to marginalized communities that have often been rendered invisible in popular media in the past. Changing a character's ethnicity from POC to white is generally (not universally, but generally) a bad idea because it will have the opposite effect of rendering POC more invisible and thereby further perpetuating their marginalization.
And I stepped back away from my offensive description of it. That was the wrong term.That's what debate is all about. But to say something is offensive and not provide why its offensive. People will respond with SMH. Or at least I will.
I do however find the characters overall as a bit too much of a caricature of people who struggle with mental illness. So, largely the scene does not sit well with me because there is that general unease of dealing with that cliche.
Similar threads
