Star Trek: Discovery (2017)

How are you watching Star Trek: Discovery?

  • Signed up for CBS All Access before watching the premiere

    Votes: 13 9.1%
  • Signed up for CBS All Access after watching the premiere

    Votes: 13 9.1%
  • Not signing up, but will watch if it's available for free

    Votes: 82 57.3%
  • On Netflix (Non-US viewer)

    Votes: 35 24.5%

  • Total voters
    143
I just rewatched/skimmed the entire episode to find what amounted to 5 seconds of total screen time of two girls dancing in an ambiguously platonic way. The relationship on the show has been under-mentioned imo given the dynamic of Discovery's major advantage relying on one of them risking their life to navigate the ship, and their partner being the main Doctor. That's a dynamic that could be adding more to the show than they've done so far.
I don't think they're using too much of an ingredient, I think they're sticking with the core Star Trek philosophy of diversity, equality, and tolerance, even with those viewpoints you disagree with (which is fine).

And that's about the only way I feel this has lived up to or understood Star Trek's underlying message, and about the only positive I can give here. :lol

This week's episode was probably the least bad yet, but only because it's ripping off better Trek (along with dozens of other scifi/fantasy shows that have used the same common idea). It was still terribly written and paced, with a lot of it not really working if you think about it either linearly or 4th dimensionally. I do find the characters are becoming slightly more likable, instead of being unnecessarily snarky at each other to create faux drama as they did constantly in previous episodes.
 
I don't think it will be remembered fondly at all, at least not by traditional fans at large. We jumped ship to The Orville. Which aside from the humor (good, but very different potato head etc), makes me feel like I did watching TNG as a kid.
 
So Saru is super strong now, and super fast?

Seems like both of those abilities would have come in handy earlier in the series.
 
Yes, I know we're talking about a fantasy show where any number of people can be gay or transgender or whatever the writers want, but in the real world, and this applies more to non-sci-fi, non-fantasy shows here, but in the real world, maybe 5% of the population is gay and less than 1% is transgender, but shows want to push a much larger percentage of the characters to be gay or be transgender so they can be "edgy". And if anyone points out that there are a disproportionate number of gay or transgender characters, they get called names. And let's be honest, a lot of these gay and transgender characters are, well... blatantly gay or transgender. In the real world, the overwhelming majority of gay people and probably transgender people, you'd never know they were gay or transgender unless you saw them with their significant other or in obvious drag. Most transgender people don't look like Divine. Most gay people don't act like the lisping, flouncing stereotype. The overwhelming majority just act like regular people. They live their lives like regular people. The first words out of their mouths are not "Hi, I'm gay". And pretty much every gay friend I have is pretty offended at the Hollywood stereotype that involves flashing lights and big signs to the audience that they have gay characters. And I'm sure the same is true for most transgender people regarding the Hollywood stereotypes.

That's my take on it anyhow. Let the inevitable hate begin.

Yah, I'm sorry for being hella late to this. But I'm the infamous gay rpf star trek fan after all....

Transgender =/= drag, Divine is a total red herring in your otherwise salient point.

But there's also a flipside to that point, which actually involves Divine. Hollywood has borrowed a lot from q u eer aesthetics. Divine was one of the main visual inspirations for Ursula, for example. That kind of stuff happens all the time, but it's not always readily apparent, especially if you didn't know the source to begin with.

As far as the show matching demographics.....also in the real world, 60.3% of the global population is Asian. Also, millennials are much more fluid in their definitions of gender. It's true that 1% of folks 35+ identify as trans. Under 35, there's 2% trans, 3% genderfluid, and a further 2% agender, 1% bigender, and 1% genderqueer. Likewise, over 35 you have 91% identifying as heterosexual, under 35 that number drops to 84%.

A 'demographically accurate' show would be more diverse.

And Discovery hasn't handled sexuality like that. TNG was way more ham fisted about it. The Stamets/Culbert relationship was definitely not "hi, I'm gay" even if the real world marketing was "DIVERSITY!!!!!!!"

Anecdotally, I was talking Discovery with another (gay) friend who is a huge Trek nerd (several cosplay uniforms to his name). He hates Stamets, thinks Anthony Rapp should "go back to Rent," but overall really loves the new series.
 
Last edited:
I gotta admit. I kinda liked that episode. Albeit it’s the ONLY episode I have enjoyed. I could have done without the Klingon bewbs but the structure of the episode felt more Trek than anything that’s come before


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I hope that this becomes the drive of the story now.... it appears Discovery is outside of the known Galaxy? Maybe another dimension? Another time? The possibilities are endless and it makes sense considering we have never heard of Spore drive in any other Trek. From the Federations perspective it was a failure and they lost a ship over it. But in reality the ship jumped to...??? Who knows!?
At least now it has the potential to be interesting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I can't believe how much I laughed at this.
Watching the Discovery make all those tiny micro jumps!!! All 133 !!!! Its rare for me ever to find a space battle between starships hilarious but this episode did it. Even if "trillions of lives" depended on the out come watching this mega starship playing pogo was funny as hell ,particularly with that overly dramatic score blasting away. Ridiculous doesn't even cover it.
Better yet was the Klingon prisoner "abuse". For a fantastic moment I thought Burnham was going to say "Show me on the hologram where the nasty klingon touched you" but they went for the alien disco porno shot instead, which was absolutely bizarre, though not nearly as risible as Michaels fight with the "Leader of the Klingons".
The level of writing on this show has become so terrible its actually more entertaining watching it for the sheer level of "Star Drek" its become . There are just so many bad character moments and dialogue in this I would weep with the horror of it were I not already crying with laughter at the absurdity of the show.
"Its Trek Jim, but not as we know it".
 
I actually sort of predicted they would become voyager. It's the only way to get rid of the tech and disconnect from the prime verse. If they run into the borg I will find the writer and smack him/her with a pair of rubber Spock ears.
 
So they spent two episodes setting up a backstory.
Then they spent the rest of the half of the season setting up relationships. Then throw all these people on one ship and sending it into the unknown.
So I guess the rest of the show will be about all of these characters learning to work together?

Cookie cutter by the books story telling?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Yah, I'm sorry for being hella late to this. But I'm the infamous gay rpf star trek fan after all....

Transgender =/= drag, Divine is a total red herring in your otherwise salient point.

But there's also a flipside to that point, which actually involves Divine. Hollywood has borrowed a lot from q u eer aesthetics. Divine was one of the main visual inspirations for Ursula, for example. That kind of stuff happens all the time, but it's not always readily apparent, especially if you didn't know the source to begin with.

As far as the show matching demographics.....also in the real world, 60.3% of the global population is Asian. Also, millennials are much more fluid in their definitions of gender. It's true that 1% of folks 35+ identify as trans. Under 35, there's 2% trans, 3% genderfluid, and a further 2% agender, 1% bigender, and 1% genderqueer. Likewise, over 35 you have 91% identifying as heterosexual, under 35 that number drops to 84%.

A 'demographically accurate' show would be more diverse.

And Discovery hasn't handled sexuality like that. TNG was way more ham fisted about it. The Stamets/Culbert relationship was definitely not "hi, I'm gay" even if the real world marketing was "DIVERSITY!!!!!!!"

Anecdotally, I was talking Discovery with another (gay) friend who is a huge Trek nerd (several cosplay uniforms to his name). He hates Stamets, thinks Anthony Rapp should "go back to Rent," but overall really loves the new series.

Those numbers don't add up.

The under 35 alt-demos adds up to 9%, assuming no overlap. So you actually have 91% under 35 as hetero, not 84%.

So, if 91% over 35+ and 91% under 35 are hetero. Then there is no growth in the alt-demos in millennials. And, if there is overlap in those under 35 alt-demos, people who identity as more than one, then you have negative growth.

And, I'll see what site you borrowed those survey results from before going any further. Especially since 'genderqueer' is an umbrella term and not an actual specific preference in and of itself. [REF: Usher, Raven, ed. (2006). North American Lexicon of Transgender Terms.]

Whoever is conducting that survey seems to be padding numbers.
 
Those numbers don't add up.

The under 35 alt-demos adds up to 9%, assuming no overlap. So you actually have 91% under 35 as hetero, not 84%.

So, if 91% over 35+ and 91% under 35 are hetero. Then there is no growth in the alt-demos in millennials. And, if there is overlap in those under 35 alt-demos, people who identity as more than one, then you have negative growth.

And, I'll see what site you borrowed those survey results from before going any further. Especially since 'genderqueer' is an umbrella term and not an actual specific preference in and of itself. [REF: Usher, Raven, ed. (2006). North American Lexicon of Transgender Terms.]

Whoever is conducting that survey seems to be padding numbers.

http://www.glaad.org/files/aa/2017_GLAAD_Accelerating_Acceptance.pdf
gender-identity-age-graph.jpg
sexual-orientation-age.jpg

Now if you don't mind, I will kindly go back to ignoring you.
 
jlee562 You could have checked your own math.

Anyways....
Those numbers are from GLAAD, who has an interest in the results. The source for my figures will be the CDC National Health Statistics Report.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf

GLAAD's survey covers a little over 2000 Americans. The CDC report covers over 34,000 Americans. Thus the CDC report is far more likely to be accurate.

The CDC report concludes Americans aged 18-64 identified as...
96.6% hetero, 1.6% gay/lesbian, 0.7% bisexual, 1.1% "something else" or "don't know".

So, I think there is evidence of a large amount of padding or number-spinning to get those figures you presented. GLAAD won't even share the whole methodology. Asking the reader to contact a middle-man concerning that information. Which is time-wasting since they can just publish it digitally and suspicious in that they need your contact information to share it with you.

The CDC numbers are what a 'demographically accurate' show would look like.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@jlee562 You could have checked your own math.

Anyways....
Those numbers are from GLAAD, who has an interest in the results. The source for my figures will be the CDC National Health Statistics Report.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf

GLAAD's survey covers a little over 2000 Americans. The CDC report covers over 34,000 Americans. Thus the CDC report is far more likely to be accurate.

The CDC report concludes Americans aged 18-64 identified as...
96.6% hetero, 1.6% gay/lesbian, 0.7% bisexual, 1.1% "something else" or "don't know".

So, I think there is evidence of a large amount of padding or number-spinning to get those figures you presented. GLAAD won't even share the whole methodology. Asking the reader to contact a middle-man concerning that information. Which is time-wasting since they can just publish it digitally and suspicious in that they need your contact information to share it with you.


Your attempt at social science is quite amusing.

First of all, the CDC has an interest in the results of their survey (identifying health disparities), that's generally the reason why any survey is done in social sciences.

Secondly, pointing out a disparity between a 2014 study with data collected in 2013 and a survey done in 2016 is NOT "evidence" of anything, much less "padding" or "number spinning."

Thirdly, from the CDC report:
Survey design and question wording differences alluded to above may exist between NHIS and other data sources, and could very well account for differences in findings across studies. The health indicators used in this report may also be operationalized differently across surveys or research studies.

So, no, you DEFINITELY don't have any "evidence" of "padding."

The CDC numbers are what a 'demographically accurate' show would look like.

This sentence makes no sense. I presume you mean that a "demographically accurate show" would better reflect the CDC numbers as opposed to the GLAAD survey....but even then....what the hell are you talking about? The Star Trek crew has always been a deliberately chosen group. Chekov was Russian because the point was to show Cold War America a future where Russians weren't the enemy. Not because demography demanded a certain amount of representation for Russian citizens.

I was responding to the point that there was "disproportionate" representation of gay or trans characters. To that I say, if you want everything to be proportional to how the real world is, Star Trek would actually display that "laundry list" of sexual identities and more than half of the people on the show should be from Asia.

So if YOU want Star Trek to address everything proportionally, just be honest about what that actually means. It means more diversity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It never ceases to amaze me how concerned some people are over who likes to bed down with who and the lengths people go to to express their dissatisfaction over seeing it on TV or in the movies or in life. The first time I saw 2 men holding hands it freaked me out but 25 years later I could care less and it actually makes me happy to see it on TV, especially on a TV show that was DESIGNED to break the status quo. Its about time gay people can see a representation of their flavor of love more often. And in case anyone thinks I have some kind of self driven agenda, I am a straight man. I have to admit that it still makes me uncomfortable when I see 2 men kiss. I wonder if gay people feel that way when they see straight folks kiss? Anyway....back to this poorly written show!!
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top