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
Mulatto? Meh, meh and meh!
Yawn. So.... human and boring.
I'm not resting until there is a Mugato Captain depicted... as star!

Man that could be bad azz right? Like having General Ursus or something.

;) :p

Not just yeah, but HELL YEAH!!

Think about the possibilities! A show revolving around the exploits and the brutal discipline of "Captain Yeargh: The Mugato"!

The entire series would be subtitled with the Captain shrieking and grunting nonsense in his native tongue. And, no bridge crew would make it past a single episode as the good captain would routinely sinks his teeth into their necks--his natural urges will not be suppressed!

And it could serve as a reboot with the very first person he mails being young Ensign Kirk on his first deep-space assignment.
 
No, not semantics. I try to be very deliberate in my wording. If I had wanted to say Trek "failed," I would have said so.

You seem to to think no critical analysis of Trek is warranted.

Trek was and is deficient in its portrayal of LGBTQIA characters. This is the most glaring example, because it was something Gene promised to the fans. We are given episodes exploring romance (or, lust) between Riker and everybody; Geordi and the holodeck; Lwuxanna Troi, but not any same sex characters.

ST also portrays a specific type of multiculturalism, and it's a vision of cultural assimilation that not everybody finds liberating or groundbreaking. In that way, it's actually quite ironic to decry Trek (or Hollywood) being beholden to "SJW" values. If that were really the case, it would make your head spin. Here's a more expanded take on that idea: http://www.popmatters.com/post/94853-black-trekkie-tuning-out-to-tune-in/



That's not quite what the link says: "...who is assumed to be sad, or even suicidal, because they fail to completely fit into the 'white world' or the 'black world."



You keep pointing back to internal conflict stemming from heritage, but that's not really what the point of the "tragic mulatto" trope is. Rather, it's about the external conflict between self and society. Perhaps that's why you feel it doesn't apply to Worf or Spock. Torres being called "turtle head" is one such example.

No, you were just using a semantic argument to skip out on a real answer.

Your critical analysis of Star Trek is highly suspect. I honestly don't think you're that familiar with the shows.

Trek doesn't need to check off your list of letters to have a reasonable portrayal of alternative lifestyles. And I dunno, I kind of think Jadzia Dax kissing another female trill on the mouth qualifies as same sex. Lots of ways you could look at the episode in which Quark had a sex change. The real problem here is that you didn't see episodes like these or you did and you're just not satisfied with the amount.

I keep point to internal conflict because they aren't 'tragic mulatto' and do not struggle like that archetype. Also you define these three characters as 'tragic mulatto', who struggle to assimilate. Then you post an article claiming Star Trek portrays that minorities have assimilated into white culture all to well.

In any case. If you're trying to turn this into a multiracial debate, that's probably not going to fly. Just like last time. I would suggest making a topic in the off-topic area or give it up. This topic is about analyzing the debacle that is the roll-out of STD.
 
No, you were just using a semantic argument to skip out on a real answer.

Your critical analysis of Star Trek is highly suspect. I honestly don't think you're that familiar with the shows.

Trek doesn't need to check off your list of letters to have a reasonable portrayal of alternative lifestyles. And I dunno, I kind of think Jadzia Dax kissing another female trill on the mouth qualifies as same sex. Lots of ways you could look at the episode in which Quark had a sex change. The real problem here is that you didn't see episodes like these or you did and you're just not satisfied with the amount.

So the Dax storyline is about a genderless symbiont which inhabits various gendered bodies which blunts some of the edge of it, because we're also to implicitly understand that it's more than Jadzia and Lenara, it's Dax and Kahn. Apparently you think me making this criticism means I am therefore negating any value that the episode has, far from it. I'm just using a different lens for analysis.

I keep point to internal conflict because they aren't 'tragic mulatto' and do not struggle like that archetype. Also you define these three characters as 'tragic mulatto', who struggle to assimilate. Then you post an article claiming Star Trek portrays that minorities have assimilated into white culture all to well.

So, if you don't think the archtype applies, you should be able to demonstrate that by pointing out instances where the characters break the narrative trope. Pointing to internal conflict to "disprove" my assertion that they are examples of the archetype is not a cogent argument.

Secondly, you're misunderstanding Kuku's point and still not really getting what the "tragic mulatto" trope is all about. You asked me in what respect did I find ST deficient in its display of diversity. I answered, in part, by referring to Kuku's piece about how the kind of multiculturalism that is on display in the Trek universe, is reflective of a certain assimilationist ideal. This is not in conflict with discussing the "struggle" to assimilate. Rather, that there is an alternative vision of the future, where there is no need for such "assimilation" and indeed that assimilation itself is problematic.

And no, you are right. I'm not satisfied with not having any fully realized, happy, same-sex characters. Because, again, it's something Gene promised to the fans.

What is a "reasonable amount" and who gets to decide what is "reasonable?" You? A bunch of dudes on the RPF?

I'm fascinated by this idea that you think I have an actual checklist.

In any case. If you're trying to turn this into a multiracial debate, that's probably not going to fly. Just like last time. I would suggest making a topic in the off-topic area or give it up. This topic is about analyzing the debacle that is the roll-out of STD.

I was being supportive of Sonequa Martin Green in the face of many negative comments. You decided that you wanted me to explain my comments further, so I did. If my comments cause you so much consternation, I'd be glad to discuss it with you in private.

- - - Updated - - -

Frakes apparently let it slip out that the Mirror universe is returning...this was probably the source of the third timeline rumors.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/jonathan-frakes-let-slip-an-unexpected-star-trek-disco-1818490734
 
Last edited:
So the Dax storyline is about a genderless symbiont which inhabits various gendered bodies which blunts some of the edge of it, because we're also to implicitly understand that it's more than Jadzia and Lenara, it's Curzon and Kahn. Apparently you think me making this criticism means I am therefore negating any value that the episode has, far from it. I'm just using a different lens for analysis.



So, if you don't think the archtype applies, you should be able to demonstrate that by pointing out instances where the characters break the narrative trope. Pointing to internal conflict to "disprove" my assertion that they are examples of the archetype is not a cogent argument.

Secondly, you're misunderstanding Kuku's point and still not really getting what the "tragic mulatto" trope is all about. You asked me in what respect did I find ST deficient in its display of diversity. I answered, in part, by referring to Kuku's piece about how the kind of multiculturalism that is on display in the Trek universe, is reflective of a certain assimilationist ideal. This is not in conflict with discussing the "struggle" to assimilate. Rather, that there is an alternative vision of the future, where there is no need for such "assimilation" and indeed that assimilation itself is problematic.

And no, you are right. I'm not satisfied with not having any fully realized, happy, same-sex characters. Because, again, it's something Gene promised to the fans.

What is a "reasonable amount" and who gets to decide what is "reasonable?" You? A bunch of dudes on the RPF?

I'm fascinated by this idea that you think I have an actual checklist.



I was being supportive of Sonequa Martin Green in the face of many negative comments. You decided that you wanted me to explain my comments further, so I did. If my comments cause you so much consternation, I'd be glad to discuss it with you in private.

- - - Updated - - -

Frakes apparently let it slip out that the Mirror universe is returning...this was probably the source of the third timeline rumors.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/jonathan-frakes-let-slip-an-unexpected-star-trek-disco-1818490734

Why does being a genderless symbiont "blunt some of the edge"? That sounds like you want to minimize the worth of a sentient species. Also, the gender is the current gender of the host so it is two women kissing.

I've already demonstrated why the three characters don't belong within that archetype.

You claim characters have social struggles due to their heritage. Then you post an article claiming strong assimilation. That is contradictory.

Roddenberry died shortly after those interviews. And Sulu in the NuTrek movies. Although I would not exactly blame anyone for denying that NuTrek is real Star Trek.

You're a dude, right? Why do you get to decide what counts as inadequate?

You posted LGBTQIA. That is a list of groups you want represented in Trek.

No, talking about Green was just a pretense for you to jump off into a racial social argument. You haven't returned to her at all. You seem to have a serious need to argue and debate your social or political beliefs. How are these topics an appropriate place to do that? Why not start your own 'off-topic' topic?

And no, last time you sent me a PM it was laced with insults. That's why you need to start a topic or just give it up.
 
Why does being a genderless symbiont "blunt some of the edge"? That sounds like you want to minimize the worth of a sentient species. Also, the gender is the current gender of the host so it is two women kissing.

Minimize the worth of a species?

It blunts the edge of the value towards representation of gay characters because we're meant to understand that it's not really a same-sex relationship. It's the Dax and Kahn symbionts, who were in a heterosexual relationship as Torias and Nilani.

I've already demonstrated why the three characters don't belong within that archetype.

You claim characters have social struggles due to their heritage. Then you post an article claiming strong assimilation. That is contradictory.

No, you didn't, and no, it isn't. What the article says is that Star Trek portrays a world in which multiple cultures have been assimilated under one umbrella, which is the dominant earth culture we see in Trek. Kuku's argument, which I also agree with, is that the portrayal of cultural values in Trek, isn't representative of our idealized world. That virtually every world is a monoculture in Trek is problematic from this point of view.

Generally in narratives, there are conflicts and resolutions. Pointing out that a conflict has a resolution is not contradictory.

Critiquing the way in which the resolution was presented, is what Kuku is doing. In the world of Trek, the resolution is assimilation. An author like Kuku would suggest that another resolution to the conflict between self and society, would be to examine the society, not self.

Roddenberry died shortly after those interviews. And Sulu in the NuTrek movies. Although I would not exactly blame anyone for denying that NuTrek is real Star Trek.
Sulu gets one shot in a movie that recognizes his relationship. Yes, that's nice. Now how many episodes of Trek relate to Riker's relationship(s)?

You're a dude, right? Why do you get to decide what counts as inadequate?
I don't give myself the power to "decide" anything. I have an opinion, you have an opinion, the writers I've cited have opinions. I do think that you might have a better appreciation of why Martin Green feels privileged to be the first black female lead in ST if you stopped to consider what it's like to underrepresented in media.

You posted LGBTQIA. That is a list of groups you want represented in Trek.
Some of those identities already are. They're just under served. I don't think Trek "needs" to tell those stories, but when they do, I'd like them to do better.


No, talking about Green was just a pretense for you to jump off into a racial social argument. You haven't returned to her at all. You seem to have a serious need to argue and debate your social or political beliefs. How are these topics an appropriate place to do that? Why not start your own 'off-topic' topic?

And no, last time you sent me a PM it was laced with insults. That's why you need to start a topic or just give it up.

You asked me to explain why I felt Trek was "deficient," and I did.

Simple.
 
Last edited:
I just signed up for CBS All Access and the $6/month plan. I get a week free. I'll watch the Season and then decide if I want to keep it. $6 per month is pretty cheap, IMO.
 
I think $6/month is a ridiculously high overpayment for the quality they are likely to give. Besides, why do I want today CBS twice, since technically I pay for their channel with my cable bill as it is.
 
Should've waited until next week as the first episode is on "free TV" CBS this coming Sunday.

Also, I get about 300 channels on cable - if I paid $6 each for them it would come to $1800 a month. There's plenty of free content out there.

I understand the future probably has a pay-as-you-go model for TV. CBS is betting a lot on this Trek series - maybe it will be worth $6 month, but I can't justify it - not yet. I'm sure it will be available in a more affordable and sensible manner sooner rather than later - whether it's iTunes or Amazon or some other digital release.
 
...This topic is about analyzing the debacle that is the roll-out of STD.
Okay. Since the current discussion is about "diversity" in Star Trek: Discovery, let's examine that for a bit. According to IMDb, the first 15 episodes were written almost exclusively by middle-aged Caucasian men. Now, I am a middle-aged Caucasian male, and I wouldn't have the first idea about how to write believably for someone who is female, or a person of color, or LGBTQIA, simply because I have zero life experience being any of those. Unless the writers had a great deal of in-depth consultation with the actors and allowed them a substantial amount of input with regards to the creation of their respective characters and their backstories, how diverse can Discovery really be?
 
I'm not totally against subscribing if they hook me with the first episode, although I'll probably hate myself for giving in to CBS' cash grab.

Re: Writing for diverse characters, DS9 is my favorite series for many reasons, but one of them was Odo's exchange with the female changling. " Being an outsider isn't so bad. It gives one a unique perspective. It's a pity you've forgotten that. " It has that perfect sense of Trek morality.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
(Catspaw is not required viewing and nobody will ever convince me of that)

Come on, at least give it up for the sly Bones/bones visual joke...


catspaw-bones1.jpg
 
"Alphabet quota"....That's pretty good. Being an old fogey, I will have to admit I had to google it to find out what the QIA stood for. When was that added?
 
Should've waited until next week as the first episode is on "free TV" CBS this coming Sunday.

Also, I get about 300 channels on cable - if I paid $6 each for them it would come to $1800 a month. There's plenty of free content out there.

I understand the future probably has a pay-as-you-go model for TV. CBS is betting a lot on this Trek series - maybe it will be worth $6 month, but I can't justify it - not yet. I'm sure it will be available in a more affordable and sensible manner sooner rather than later - whether it's iTunes or Amazon or some other digital release.
It might be, it I’m actually betting that it isn’t the future. I think this one will flop then a few others before they notice that most other venues are actually moving AWAY from that model.

Most are moving towards a business model of money for ads, then customers pay for extras, like no commercials. In the case of video games I wish it wasn’t. I actually prefer the subscription model, but I think I may be in the minority there. YouTube offers free content, then pay for premium services.

Network TV has been trying, and failing to figure it out for years now, but instead of trying something different, they keep trying the same thing over and over. There’s zero reason to think it will work this time any better than the last few times it’s been tried.



and that’s one thing that makes me even more wary of this show. It’s a castle built on a swamp. You might get into the show only to find that the service it’s on is doomed.
 
So, shall we just have them write every episode of Trek according to percentage of population? Producer: "Please make sure .3% of all scripts are concerning a transgender character!"
 
This may have been said before, but I'm just trying to come at it from another angle too see if it sticks.

Star Trek has always pushed the boundaries of its time. Usually more than almost any other mainstream show.

The boundaries have moved some, since the last Trek, but that's no reason to critique Trek for not living up to what you think they should have been by today's standards. The truth is, from episode one of ToS they were usually at the vanguard for the time, and it's unjust to accuse them of being deficient on that score. Or to claim that this is the first Trek to push boundaries.
 
...@Zombie_61
Well, didn't you hear? Discovery will have the First black female lead in a Trek series.......:rolleyes
Oh, right. At this point it's such a non-issue that I keep forgetting. :D

I realize Miss Martin-Green is only 22 years old, but she seems to be largely unaware of the history of her chosen career. If she acknowledged having even a hint of knowledge about the people who truly blazed the trail that allowed her to be cast as Lt. Burnham, it might come across as being far less self-serving. Then again, she may have been instructed to mention the fact that she'll be the first black female lead in a Trek series as part of the show's misguided promotional program, so I'm not sure I/we can place the blame squarely on her shoulders.
 
Am I the only one that remembers TV Guide and Starlog (to name a couple) making a big deal about Sisko being the first African American Trek lead, and Janeway as the first female Captain? I even recall people crapping their pants on an early AOL message board that they were ignoring the Saratoga's Captain (cause you know, semantics).

This is no different save for now, apparently, because political correctness is a battleground, we feel the need to argue about it. Trek is doing what Trek has always done, there's just a bigger platform to complain about it if they don't give you exactly what you want.

Fandom has been on a path of insufferableness since the day TOS was saved from cancellation. From that moment forward, it's been an increasing level of fanboys thinking they are owed exactly what they want (even though there is never any sort agreement within said fandom).

Now we get to condemn a show before it's come out, start petitions to have directors fired (that no one in the industry will give a crap about), or try to dox writers out of TV rooms.
 

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