Discussion in 'Star Trek: Discovery' started by F. King Daniel, Sep 2, 2020.
Yeah, well, duh! My spell checker flagged most of those words anyway... But that's okay.
I have a sense of humor. It's called punching up at the powerful and not punching down on the marginalized. Also, news anchors swearing on live TV. Anyway, now you know better and that's the point.
If you want to criticize the writing you can do it without throwing marginalized people under the bus. Just...criticize the writing.
ok put it this way...if a show sucks, then it sucks,
Adding another character regardless of their color, sex, gender etc, wont stop the show from sucking, if the same writers are writing for the new character as well
By your logic if a show sucks and add a trans person and the show will suddenly be better. and anyone that continues to complain is then slated for having anti lgbtq tendencies.
Can you not see how ridiculous that sounds....
The commercial vehicle for evil corporations accumulating more wealth at least being commandeered by marginalized people to be used for increasing their positive representation and thus changing the national narrative on their existence is a good thing.
Like, I've got my issues with Discovery (and Hollywood projects in general) but that doesn't mean I'm not going to just focus on those aspects and not correlate the inclusion of marginalized people with anything negative. I'm happy to see trans men and enbies given representation in Trek, I still want the episode directors to become better at using layouts, timing and editing in their directing to make every episode visually pop. If Kamen Rider--shot at a breakneck pace--can make their dialogue scenes interesting then so can Trek.
They get up in arms if the grips break a sweat.
Darin from bewitched got replaced by a homosexual.
Marked drop in over all quality.
She of course said nothing of the sort.
I've always loved the idea that Star Trek, the show that gave us:
Has always been about The Story First and not An Agenda.
Totally an agenda.
Oh it's a great agenda, but it's a agenda.
I was using her statement that no lgbtq character made a show worse, and whilst true you can also argue they wont make it better either if the writing is rubbish.
The writing has been rubbish from day one, burnham is awful, but because she is female and black right away people think its a gender or color issue if there is any criticizm, and that is sad as some are ultra defensive and want to label anyone that dares question things some form of bigot or its because of "hate", which is absolute nonsense.
If burnham dies.
Tilly gets the show.
Are you fine with that?
The extremely gay, but not quite yet, Raven Simone was brought in to upstage Kiesha Knight, and she did.
No generally it's when the criticism is gendered or racist that it is a hate issue. Particularly the criticising of Burnham for things that white men have done in Trek for years without comment, or the argument that she or others are "token" or agenda based inserts because they aren't the default straight white men.
Disliking Burnham, or indeed Discovery, is fine. I have plenty negative to say myself. But there are plenty of people who seem much more upset about the diversity of the cast than anything else.
No, they really won't. The first season will be more than three years old when it premieres on broadcast. This is schedule filler because of slowed production due to COVID-19, and is all gravy for CBS as it is already paid for.
You know, that episode - "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"- is so fucking bad that you're almost making his point for him, right?
I think it would work. Assuming they need another ship on the show. It's kind of hard though to make some predictions because we don't know the status of the future just yet. Like I am not sure if the Federation is gone or just shrunken to hand full of worlds. Who is the big superpower in the AQ now. Whatever it is I am thinking it's bleak though from the photo of the crew basically being placed in a rock crater with a Federation flag in tatters.
When the majority of the criticism you see on the internet amounts to memes going like "Burnham, Rey and the Thirteenth Doctor are Strong Female Characters because they murdered their respective franchises all by themselves" and knee-jerk complaints about how snowflakes, wokeness and SJWs ruined their childhood toy, illustrated with nothing but a picture of Burnham, then of course others will think they principally have a problem with her gender and skin color. You may notice how there are lots of people on this very site who frequently complain about her storylines, clunky dialogue or stilted emotions in particular, or just generally about characterization in the show, without being called bigots.
Saying SMG overacts, that Burnham's dialogue is cringy, or that the focus on her is to the detriment of Tilly's or Saru's character development, is valid criticism that can be agreed and disagreed with. But the constant complaining seen on youtube, reddit and the like, that every "demo" character is a token quota hire who has no 'valid story reason' to be in the show is, on the other hand, plain old bigotry. Just like crying 'Mary Sue' whenever a woman does something men usually do.
I think it's iconic
No way does SMG overact. That actually would be more fun than what she is currently doing with the ole repress emotions because I grew up on Vulcan thing. I would love to see her chew the scenery with the level of flair of Shatner. She should take some lessons from looking at what Tilly is doing. Now their is some fun acting going on.
Imagine if you were in the 1960's and saw a black woman, a Russian and an Asian guy being treated as equals to the white men??
So I keep getting alerts about this post, and every response to this post, and I'm not even actually quoted. It's a bit annoying.
But hey, this DavidBu person who apparently quote-failed in trying to respond to me seems like a real winner otherwise, doesn't he?
I have no idea what rey, the 13th floor are...no interest.
Those complaining on youtube and reddit are not my concern either, and I am not responsible for them., and only speak for myself.
You see I wanted to like discovery, after Enterprise finished and all we had were those manky abrams movies i was longing for a decent trek show, I wanted to like it, but it was shit writing, with a character that was shit, and dominated the show, made the others feel like they were just there to make up the numbers. Most of them had decent potential, still do but they need to sort it out quick, but the more I watched it seemed there was going to be no end to burnham dominating the show. I found myself waiting for any scene that did not involve her.
When people then assume its some gender issue or colour issue, it says more about them and their insecurities. Not every criticism is a gender,or color issue.If they are going to add even more diversity, then make sure they give the actors decent roles, but sadly I fear, like everyone one else on the show, they too will be there to make up the numbers
Separate names with a comma.