Sonequa Martin-Green is Your DSC Star

[Locutus of Bored]

I don't have to pretend to be a white male. You on the other hand do have to pretend to be female.

Infraction for trolling. Comments to PM.

Infraction for flaming. Comments to PM.

You're a moderator - how about you moderate?

She's not a moderator in this forum, she's just another poster here like you without the ability to perform moderator functions, and she's is entitled to defend herself from your intolerance. Also, it's a copout for people to always fall back on the "But you're a moderator!" criticism as if that means we're not allowed to have opinions or be bothered when we're insulted.

 

[GabyBee]

Back at ya buddy.

Sick burn.

 

[JD]

Wow, I jumped ahead a few pages in the thread, and this thread definitely took quite a turn.

It is nice to finally get official confirmation about Martin-Green being in Discovery. The people who guessed they were waiting for TWD to end were right about the timing there.
I was a bit surprised by the name, but we've been getting quite a few female characters with male names, so I'm not surprised. Not bothered by it either.
Are people actually upset by it? I don't see where it's an issue, it's just a name and I don't see any reason to jump to any kind of conclusions about the character. None of characters in other shows have been transgender, or "not feminine" or anything like that.

 

[Borgminister]

I guess we'll all ... discover that soon enough...

 

[Greg Cox]

Heck, the heroine in the new KONG movie is named "Mason." The Samuel L. Jackson character is surprised to find out that "Mason" is a woman, but that's pretty much the extent of it. It's not like Brie Larson is playing a transgender photojournalist or whatever.

I wouldn't read too much into the Discovery character's name.

 

[BillJ]

I wouldn't read too much into the Discovery character's name.

This is the internet. Outrage is the standard operating procedure.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

This is the internet. Outrage is the standard operating procedure.

This is the most ill-informed post I have ever seen in my life!

 

[Jedi_Master]

Heck, the heroine in the new KONG movie is named "Mason." The Samuel L. Jackson character is surprised to find out that "Mason" is a woman, but that's pretty much the extent of it. It's not like Brie Larson is playing a transgender photojournalist or whatever.

I wouldn't read too much into the Discovery character's name.

You're new here, aren't you?

 

[Greg Cox]

It's not like Brie Larson is playing a transgender photojournalist or whatever.
.

Not that there would be anything wrong with that, he adds belatedly.

 

[Thefallguy]

Klick

Boooring... Can we talk about Star Trek again? I just flipped through the last few pages...

 

[cultcross]

The Samuel L. Jackson character is surprised to find out that "Mason" is a woman

It's a very common TV trope to have a character be mistaken for a man and be just out of shot to dramatically correct the chauvinist who is speaking.
I'm suspicious Stargate called a main character Sam just so they could have this beat.

 

[CorporalClegg]

After that whole exchange went down, Tapping must have said to herself "What the hell did I sign on for?!"

 

[NOVE9]

It was a great moment for the series.

 

[The Wormhole]

Oh, that whole "just because my reproductive organs are on the inside" line. Even later SG-1 episodes began making fun of it.

 

[Tuskin38]

And then they removed it in the Special Edition re-release of the episode.

 

[Rahul]

Oh, that whole "just because my reproductive organs are on the inside" line. Even later SG-1 episodes began making fun of it.

Funnily enough, I never minded it. It was corny as hell. But 'corny as hell' is a pretty apt description for Stargate as a whole. And I love it! Interestingly the SG-1 pilot episode also had full frontal nudity. Which was also cut in re-runs. It was kind of show off-y, but it made sense in-universe - I can believe the Goa'uld would like to inspect the whole body before deciding on it as a new host. It's arguable if it was needed in the first place, but cutting it retroactively felt actually worse, as it smelled like George-Lucas-like special editioning of the original because one now is ashamed of some aspects of the original. But that's a whole debate of it's own.

Somehow I think Discovery might as well have some of those 'flashier' moments (nuditiy or violence) during it's first season, just to make sure people notice it's premium subscription television...

 

[The Wormhole]

Interestingly the SG-1 pilot episode also had full frontal nudity. Which was also cut in re-runs. It was kind of show off-y, but it made sense in-universe - I can believe the Goa'uld would like to inspect the whole body before deciding on it as a new host. It's arguable if ot was needed in the first place, but cutting it retroactively felt actually worse, as it smelled like George-Lucas-like special editioning of the original because one now is ashamed of some aspects from the original.

The nudity was something Showtime forced into the pilot for no real reason other than "we can do that on this channel." SG-1's producers were always against it as they wanted the show to be family-friendly in the same sense that Star Trek is. The were overruled on this.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

And then they removed it in the Special Edition re-release of the episode.

They did what? Seriously?

 

[Rahul]

The nudity was something Showtime forced into the pilot for no real reason other than "we can do that on this channel." SG-1's producers were always against it as they wanted the show to be family-friendly in the same sense that Star Trek is. The were overruled on this.

Yeah. They may have been forced to do it. But in the end they integrated it into the plot. That means it's part of the narrative, and part of the episode now. Sanitizing it in retrospect is the wrong decision (as is probably all sanitizing art to adjust it to current sensibilities). Just because the producers of 'Enterprise' were "forced" to set the show on a spaceship (instead of having the first season take place on Earth as they originally planned), doesn't invalidate that the final product is set on a spaceship during it's first season. That's part of it's identity now.

Now I can see why they cut the nudity - when they showed the re-run during prime time. There are regulations. But cutting the "reproductive-organs-on-the-inside"-line retroactively just because it's corny? I don't like it. That's part of the original, like the rest of the corny dialogue, the cheesy effects, and the cardboard-box spaceship set. It's part of the charme, and part of the product. I'm against "special editionalizing" art (movies, or television) on a principle, because it more often does bad than good, and even if there are reasons for it, it changes retroactively the identity of the original, warts and all. Just ask a random Star Wars fan.

But again, this is a whole debate on it's own...

(One I severly hope we won't have with Discovery in a decade when the show will be sanitized for re-runs on network television)

 

[wayoung]

Remember when they edited The Sopranos and Dexter for 10 pm network airings?

GoT here in Canada as well I think.