News Trans character announced

[Anthony60]

Cisgender and heterosexual people are neither plain nor vanilla, because gay, bisexual, pansexual, non-binary, transgender, aromantic and asexual people are not something to be othered.

Yeah, well, duh! My spell checker flagged most of those words anyway... But that's okay.

 

[JulieYBM]

It was tongue in cheek comment, get a sense of humour. It was blatantly obvious my criticism were aimed at the writing and not people in general.
At my age its a struggle to keep up with what every the correct terms are these days they change so often. I never knew that was a slur,

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.

 

[gazomg]

Ever noticed how all these guys claim they just want good stories over representation as if this is a huge problem. But I can’t think of a single example of how adding a LGBTQ character or plot ruined a show. Unless you just hate LGBTQ people and just seeing one on a show you watched ruined it for you because you can’t stand to even think about them existing. You want an escape to a fantasy world where everyone is straight and cis, no one who isn’t “normal”. But I’m sure they have countless examples of this happening or it isn’t a real problem.

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....

 

[JulieYBM]

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.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Unions.

They get up in arms if the grips break a sweat.

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....

Darin from bewitched got replaced by a homosexual.

Marked drop in over all quality.

Too handsome.

 

[cultcross]

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....

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.

 

[Guy Gardener]

She of course said nothing of the sort.


I've always loved the idea that Star Trek, the show that gave us:
View attachment 17651
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.

 

[gazomg]

She of course said nothing of the sort.

.

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.

 

[Guy Gardener]

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.

 

[cultcross]

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,

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.

 

[BillJ]

Now STD will be on broadcast. The numbers for that will be telling.

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.

Try again?

 

[Mudd]

She of course said nothing of the sort.


I've always loved the idea that Star Trek, the show that gave us:
View attachment 17651
Has always been about The Story First and not An Agenda.

You know, that episode - "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"- is so fucking bad that you're almost making his point for him, right?

 

[Jayson1]

I wasn't talking about main captain, though? Just captain of another ship the Disco partners with for a few episodes.

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.


Jason

 

[SJGardner]

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.

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.

 

[NCC-73515]

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's iconic

 

[Jayson1]

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.


Jason

 

[F. King Daniel]

Absolutely. And there is no shortage of persons who will gas-light you into trying to believe that it isn’t virtue signaling or pushing an agenda. Just to add to your concerns let’s not forget the most recent Trek event interview with Alex Kurtzman. It’s not about Star Trek it’s about the platform.
It’s too obvious Trek is no longer about story first and neither is it about character development.
It’s now obvious that Trek is about agenda first and the story is just packaging. It was obvious to some of us that this has damaged the franchise, lowering viewership interests and destroying interest in licensing products (where long term franchises have capital value).

Now the evidence of the viewership is slipping through the cracks. The articles about viewership in Canada are out. American viewers aren’t that dissimilar to our Canadian cousins. The viewership of Short Treks and Lower Decks on YouTube are abysmal for a channel like CBSViacom with millions of followers.

And if the rebranded streaming service or All Access had any greater, iconic properties that could draw interest to a streaming service, Trek would have been cut loose years ago.

Now STD will be on broadcast. The numbers for that will be telling. And Kurtzman is public now that Trek is just a platform to push an agenda.

my point is that this will be tokenism. I’m a gay man and I felt Culber and and what’s-his-name were also token. Characters that felt like they were there to make a statement first. Burnham felt that way to me also, to a lesser degree. All of these “first for Trek” things that aren’t really and usually weren’t well researched when they took their cultural brownie points and ran with it to the press for the PR.
Frankly, it’s insulting for a show that purports to be the descendant of Gene Rodenberry’s Trek to continue on with the 2009 movie trends. That continues the trend from 2009 of replacing science fiction with science fantasy. For telling convoluted stories that are low IQ, vapid, vacuous, hyperkinetic, spasmodic, and manic with Louis sounds and explosions in the place of dramatic tension and character driven storytelling.

And now someone’s going to come here and try to pass the notion that this isn’t tokenism. That it isn’t to placate .02% of the population to grab a viewer who isn’t there and won’t spend money keeping Trek alive for the next 50 years.

It’s insulting. It’s disingenuous. It divides the fan base and creates the types of tensions that never were part of fan base debate and at times heated discussion. Our fandom has always been dynamic, diverse in opinion and in the various shades, shapes, creeds, and so on. It has been robust and often argumentative. We’ve have some ugly at times. But not like this.
This is a new level, brought about in an agenda that seems to exist just to push a boundary that most fans of Trek honestly don’t care about.

Trek- good Trek is a story that encompasses species that have more than two sexes. More than just a few shades of colors. More than just mammals or bi-peds. It should now still be about the story first as Trek has always been. There have always been morality plays and reflections of mores and ethics. But always through a good story and Trek of old tried hard to lead the audience to the point and let them decide, not beat the audience over the head.

But we can think less talented and less subtle writers from the CW and show runners who are more concerned with having a platform upon which they can stand and be tone deaf as they shout.

But hey, there will be those who will defend it tooth and nail. They will defend it to the detriment of the franchise. They will defend it while insisting that you are the nasty, evil person of their fantasmagoria. Those tolerant, liberal persons of social justice and virtue will defend the show and its bigotry of low expectations and tokenism. While simultaneously calling you all nasty things, declaring that you shouldn’t speak, and that this franchise isn’t for you obviously and that you should be the one to go.

I’ll bet anything dollars to latinum that you’ll see it here. Against all the evidence and logical reasoning. That’s what Trek is becoming and that’s what trying to debate with the ideologically possessed will bring you.

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??

Like seriously.

 

[Guy Gardener]

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.


Jason

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[The Realist]

[QUOTE="The Realist, post: 13512257, member: 354”]

Because that’s not good storytelling and needing to see yourself “represented” in your entertainment is narcissism in the extreme. If that’s what you’re asking when you’re watching something then you really should seek a counselor or a psychologist to speak to.

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?

 

[gazomg]

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 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