Did not not know that Voq is played by an actor that no one has ever heard of, and who was never seen at Discovery PR events. Hmmm.
Spoilers The game changing Voq theory
- Thread starter SJA
- Start date
Did not not know that Voq is played by an actor that no one has ever heard of, and who was never seen at Discovery PR events. Hmmm.
have you not read this thread? That's one of the biggest pieces of trivia we've been using for this theory lol
TrekSphere has a source for Shazard's birth name being 'Iqbal'
https://treksphere.com/news/human-or-klingon/
Comes from a 2009 Drama school newsletter.
https://treksphere.com/news/human-or-klingon/
Comes from a 2009 Drama school newsletter.
I think I said it jokingly before but now I have some reason to believe (The Rod version) that....
Lorca is 'now' a Klingon!
Well...Maybe!
Just came to me this - apologises if already mentioned - But I seem to recall at some early part of the Disc filming process that Isaacs was told off for mentioning in a tweet that he had been wearing or having prosthetic work done on set? He posted a video or tweet or whatever you young pups call it - 'The things we do for love...And Starfleet' I seem to recall around May? That got removed mighty quick! Did anyone see it/ remember this? Maybe the Tyler/Voq stuff is misdirection? Que 1950's sci-fi 'Drr! Drrr! Drr music!
Lorca is 'now' a Klingon!
Well...Maybe!
Just came to me this - apologises if already mentioned - But I seem to recall at some early part of the Disc filming process that Isaacs was told off for mentioning in a tweet that he had been wearing or having prosthetic work done on set? He posted a video or tweet or whatever you young pups call it - 'The things we do for love...And Starfleet' I seem to recall around May? That got removed mighty quick! Did anyone see it/ remember this? Maybe the Tyler/Voq stuff is misdirection? Que 1950's sci-fi 'Drr! Drrr! Drr music!
Isaacs still has posts up about getting a full head cast made.
https://trekmovie.com/2017/06/24/st...sk-doug-jones-action-mishap-and-starfleet-hq/
Cool! Glad I didn't imagine it then!
The way DSC has been going, I wouldn't be surprised they did a head casting for a scene where Lorca is killed and decapitated by Klingons.
Given how this series isn't structured like any of the others and we have supposedly prominent and lead characters killed off in the first two episodes it would never surprise me if Lorca died at the hands of the Klingons before the end of Season 1.
"surprise" should simply be surprise. No one knew it was McMahon all along!
Thing is, it could have been done for anything. Including the head-brace torture device.
I'm holding out hope for a Scanners-type scene when Lorca makes first contact with the Betazoids.
There's a new article about the Voq/Ash theory on TrekMovie ...
https://trekmovie.com/2017/10/18/st...-theory-analysis-is-lt-tyler-the-klingon-voq/
https://trekmovie.com/2017/10/18/st...-theory-analysis-is-lt-tyler-the-klingon-voq/
I'm leaning towards this theory being true after reading that. I'm also guessing the real Ash is alive, held prisoner somewhere by L'Rell. Maybe he's a slave on Rura Penthe.
https://trekmovie.com/2017/10/18/st...-theory-analysis-is-lt-tyler-the-klingon-voq/
https://trekmovie.com/2017/10/18/st...-theory-analysis-is-lt-tyler-the-klingon-voq/
I'm leaning towards this theory being true after reading that. I'm also guessing the real Ash is alive, held prisoner somewhere by L'Rell. Maybe he's a slave on Rura Penthe.
None of the analysis in that article is based on empirical evidence that is specifically indicative of the theory being accurate.
Everything in it is presented with a biased eye to confirming the theory rather than organically building to the conclusion that it confirms the theory.
The writer of that article wants the theory to be true, so they've presented their analysis in such a way that the only logical conclusion can be that the theory is true.
Everything in it is presented with a biased eye to confirming the theory rather than organically building to the conclusion that it confirms the theory.
The writer of that article wants the theory to be true, so they've presented their analysis in such a way that the only logical conclusion can be that the theory is true.
Do you have any understanding at all of how the entertainment industry actually works?
Why would there be evidence against the theory when there's no empirical and objective evidence for it?
The people who want this theory to be true are taking what we have from the series, lumping it together with a bunch of BtS stuff that may not actually mean anything, and drawing rhe conclusion that the theory is true instead of allowing those things to organically and independently confirm that the theory is true.
The people who want this theory to be true are taking what we have from the series, lumping it together with a bunch of BtS stuff that may not actually mean anything, and drawing rhe conclusion that the theory is true instead of allowing those things to organically and independently confirm that the theory is true.
I actually haven't argued against rhe theory itself.
I've said that I don't personally buy it and believe it to be silly, but the bulk of what I've been arguing is the lack of empirical evidence independently confirming it.
I've said that I don't personally buy it and believe it to be silly, but the bulk of what I've been arguing is the lack of empirical evidence independently confirming it.
