Poll: How are you watching Star Trek: Discovery?

Subscribe
  1. Member Since
    Oct 2014
    From
    WA state
    Messages
    1,835
    3 Weeks Ago  Nov 15, 2017, 12:56 AM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #1926

    @SethS Asking me a bunch of assumption filled questions, slanted to suggest I'm some kind of hater, is hardly worthy. Especially since I've proudly defended the notion that DS9 beat STD to the punch with Jadzia Dax kissing another female. Mirror universe Kira and Ezri while we're at it.

    Unless you think merely using a scientific survey to show proof is someone acting anti-anything. In which case you have unfair standards.

    jlee562 said: View Post
    Although my certification has lapsed, I have been trained in human subjects protocol for institutional review. So yes, I am familiar with survey methodology. It's one of those things one picks up in the process of earning a master's degree in a social science.

    Implying that GLAAD has an interest in spinning numbers is not actually the same as demonstrating that they have. Moreover, the CDC could have any number of reasons for skewing demographics. But that's not the significant issue here.

    Showing slight disparities in two surveys which ask different questions (and btw, the margin of error is probably larger than the discrepancies we're talking about here), does not demonstrate that the GLAAD study is flawed. Moreover, the point I was making was that younger folks are embracing a wider spectrum of gender and sexuality. The GLAAD survey numbers actually validate this hypothesis because the cohort start date moves from 1995 to 1998.

    Seth beat me to the punch though what's your actual argument? Gay fans of Trek have watched their favorite heterosexual characters fall in and out of love and lust. It's easy for a heterosexual person to not be aware that their stories are assumed to have a universality by default.

    And let's just get to the bottom line. Has the Stamets/Culbert relationship really taken up waaaay more than 1.6% of Discovery's screen time or narrative?

    P.S. I went looking for the margin of error in the CDC report...and well, I'll just let the researchers speak for their dataset:


    You are either deliberately misrepresenting what the data represents, or misunderstanding what is being presented. The researchers are not attempting to establish a definitive estimate of sexual orientation. The main goal of the research is to identify health indicators (drinking/smoking/psychological distress/access to healthcare) between demographic groups.

    P.P.S. http://news.gallup.com/poll/201731/l...ion-rises.aspx
    Explain a 5%+ disparity between CDC and GLAAD's "bisexual" percentage. Where did GLAAD get that extra 5%+? That's not a "slight disparity". They've also nearly doubled the gay population from 1.6% to 3%. Nearly doubling a figure is also not a "slight disparity".

    GLAAD has basically over-represented every demographic favorable to their interests. Funny how all those "disparities" just so happen to favor their totals. It's also very telling that you refuse to address the fact that GLAAD is hiding their method, while CDC shares freely.

    That warning about unreliable figures pertains to "health indicators". Not the actual demographic itself.

    As for misunderstanding demographics, you apparently think they pertain to screen time.

    That gallup poll is LGBT combined. So you are basically now admitting that only 4.1% of total people are LGBT, which totally destroys GLAAD numbers and shows them to be inflated. Since only 4.1% are LGBT, then we really need to know where GLAAD got 6% "bisexual".
    Last edited by MrSouthpaw; 3 Weeks Ago at 1:01 AM.
  2. SethS's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 2016
    From
    Los Angeles
    Messages
    1,853
    3 Weeks Ago  Nov 15, 2017, 12:58 AM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #1927

    MrSouthpaw said: View Post
    @SethS Asking me a bunch of assumption filled questions, slanted to suggest I'm some kind of hater, is hardly worthy. Especially since I've proudly defended the notion that DS9 beat STD to the punch with Jadzia Dax kissing another female. Mirror universe Kira and Ezri while we're at it.
    I clearly said I didn't think you were a homophobe. You just seemed so dead set to make a point about the gay representation on the show and I lost track of what it was.

    I was legit asking what your argument was in relation to Discovery because I think the lede got buried somewhere.
  3. Member Since
    Oct 2014
    From
    WA state
    Messages
    1,835
    3 Weeks Ago  Nov 15, 2017, 1:40 AM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #1928

    SethS said: View Post
    I clearly said I didn't think you were a homophobe. You just seemed so dead set to make a point about the gay representation on the show and I lost track of what it was.

    I was legit asking what your argument was in relation to Discovery because I think the lede got buried somewhere.
    You asked me why there is a problem with gay people kissing on screen, among other highly-loaded questions. That's pretty much an accusation all by itself. Especially since I haven't said anything anti-gay kissing on screen.

    Anyways, here is the point for point.

    jlee claims with a GLAAD survey that there is a roughly 9% alternative-demo population. Then says if Trek were 'demographically accurate" there would actually be more diversity.

    I countered with a CDC survey that says the number is far smaller. And claimed that his survey was suspect due to the source.

    He has yet to address the suspicious points raised. The lack of methodology, how they don't share it. The fact that the "slight disparities" as he calls them are not slight and all favor GLAAD.

    And now, he has posted a gallup poll that pretty much undercut all the GLAAD numbers and show them to be very inflated. Let's see how he responds to that.
  4. jlee562's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 2005
    From
    San Francisco
    Messages
    2,221
    3 Weeks Ago  Nov 15, 2017, 1:40 AM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #1929

    MrSouthpaw said: View Post
    @SethS Asking me a bunch of assumption filled questions, slanted to suggest I'm some kind of hater, is hardly worthy. Especially since I've proudly defended the notion that DS9 beat STD to the punch with Jadzia Dax kissing another female. Mirror universe Kira and Ezri while we're at it.

    Unless you think merely using a scientific survey to show proof is someone acting anti-anything. In which case you have unfair standards.



    Explain a 5%+ disparity between CDC and GLAAD's "bisexual" percentage. Where did GLAAD get that extra 5%+? That's not a "slight disparity". They've also nearly doubled the gay population from 1.6% to 3%. Nearly doubling a figure is also not a "slight disparity".

    GLAAD has basically over-represented every demographic favorable to their interests. Funny how all those "disparities" just so happen to favor their totals. It's also very telling that you refuse to address the fact that GLAAD is hiding their method, while CDC shares freely.

    That warning about unreliable figures pertains to "health indicators". Not the actual demographic itself.

    As for misunderstanding demographics, you apparently think they pertain to screen time.

    That gallup poll is LGBT combined. So you are basically now admitting that only 4.1% of total people are LGBT, which totally destroys GLAAD numbers and shows them to be inflated. Since only 4.1% are LGBT, then we really need to know where GLAAD got 6% "bisexual".
    So again, implying that GLAAD has a slant and demonstrating that they have one are two different things.

    There's a fairly simple, non-nefarious reason why ESTIMATES of LGBT populations and self-reporting surveys differ. Social acceptance.

    Is it possible that there GLAAD survey oversampled LGBTQ respondents? Absolutely.

    But the CDC survey you keep holding up EXPLICITLY SAYS IT UNDERREPRESENTS the LGBTQ population.

    No, nowhere did I claim demographics should be related to screen time. Cephus brought up the percentages to argue that gay and trans characters are "disproportionate" to "the real world." You're the one who keeps arguing that there is "adequate" representation of LGBTQ characters while trying to cherry pick the smallest number possible to represent the LGBTQ population.

    For the sake of argument let's say I'm wrong on the statistics of gay people. Pick whatever number you want.

    Now what the hell does that number have to do with Star Trek?
  5. jlee562's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 2005
    From
    San Francisco
    Messages
    2,221
    3 Weeks Ago  Nov 15, 2017, 2:04 AM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #1930

    MrSouthpaw said: View Post
    You asked me why there is a problem with gay people kissing on screen, among other highly-loaded questions. That's pretty much an accusation all by itself. Especially since I haven't said anything anti-gay kissing on screen.

    Anyways, here is the point for point.

    jlee claims with a GLAAD survey that there is a roughly 9% alternative-demo population. Then says if Trek were 'demographically accurate" there would actually be more diversity.

    I countered with a CDC survey that says the number is far smaller. And claimed that his survey was suspect due to the source.

    He has yet to address the suspicious points raised. The lack of methodology, how they don't share it. The fact that the "slight disparities" as he calls them are not slight and all favor GLAAD.

    And now, he has posted a gallup poll that pretty much undercut all the GLAAD numbers and show them to be very inflated. Let's see how he responds to that.
    Again, reading comprehension.

    What I said was: 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%.

    So first of all, let's be clear this is a claim about millennials specifically. Of which the Gallup poll finds 7.3% of millennials identify as LGBTQ. This is compared to 9% combined bi and gay in the GLAAD survey.

    Secondly, you're not drawing data driven conclusions. You see an increase in people who identify as bi as a flawed poll or biased survey. Rather than actually reading that both the Gallup Poll, GLAAD Survey, and the most widely cited study on the U.S. LGBTQ population (done by the author in the previously linked Daily Beast article), point out that changing social acceptance has shifted the numbers, and that statistics might vary because not everyone is comfortable sharing their private lives with government data collectors.

    While you're not wrong to question methodology per se, your questions don't form a cogent rebuttal.

    So pick whatever number you want, and tell us how it relates to Trek.

    P.S. I should also point out even though you wanted to mock my math earlier, you actually mucked everything up in your initial reply, grouping the 9% "alt demos" and claiming that meant that there was still "91% hetero. " Except you're conflating data from two separate questions, gender identity, and sexual orientation, which is why I simply replied with the charts, which should have been the end of it.
    Last edited by jlee562; 3 Weeks Ago at 2:19 AM.
  6. Member Since
    Oct 2014
    From
    WA state
    Messages
    1,835
    3 Weeks Ago  Nov 15, 2017, 2:12 AM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #1931

    jlee562 said: View Post
    So again, implying that GLAAD has a slant and demonstrating that they have one are two different things.

    There's a fairly simple, non-nefarious reason why ESTIMATES of LGBT populations and self-reporting surveys differ. Social acceptance.

    Is it possible that there GLAAD survey oversampled LGBTQ respondents? Absolutely.

    But the CDC survey you keep holding up EXPLICITLY SAYS IT UNDERREPRESENTS the LGBTQ population.

    No, nowhere did I claim demographics should be related to screen time. Cephus brought up the percentages to argue that gay and trans characters are "disproportionate" to "the real world." You're the one who keeps arguing that there is "adequate" representation of LGBTQ characters while trying to cherry pick the smallest number possible to represent the LGBTQ population.

    For the sake of argument let's say I'm wrong on the statistics of gay people. Pick whatever number you want.

    Now what the hell does that number have to do with Star Trek?
    The numbers wildly favoring GLAAD demonstrate their slant.

    What estimates? I haven't brought up any estimates. Only survey numbers.

    And you'll have to quote that claim the CDC explicitly says it under-represents LGBTQ.

    You questioned whether the gay relationship on STD took up less than 1.6% of time. When that number has only been offered as a demographic. So, yes. You apparently think there is a time component to these numbers.

    You're the one making the claim that the show would more diverse were it to be "demographically accurate". So don't try and backpedal claiming it's not relevant.

    Also, since you refuse to address the fact that your own gallup poll link undercuts and destroys your GLAAD survey. I can only conclude you don't want to or cannot debate anymore.
  7. Member Since
    Oct 2014
    From
    WA state
    Messages
    1,835
    3 Weeks Ago  Nov 15, 2017, 2:52 AM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #1932

    @jlee562
    You said.....
    "A 'demographically accurate' show would be more diverse."

    Your Gallup poll says only 4.1% of surveyed ID as LGBT.

    What percentage of the main cast is LGBT? What percentage would it be if the cast were "demographically accurate"?
  8. jlee562's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 2005
    From
    San Francisco
    Messages
    2,221
    3 Weeks Ago  Nov 15, 2017, 2:52 AM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #1933

    MrSouthpaw said: View Post
    The numbers wildly favoring GLAAD demonstrate their slant.

    What estimates? I haven't brought up any estimates. Only survey numbers.

    And you'll have to quote that claim the CDC explicitly says it under-represents LGBTQ.

    You questioned whether the gay relationship on STD took up less than 1.6% of time. When that number has only been offered as a demographic. So, yes. You apparently think there is a time component to these numbers.

    You're the one making the claim that the show would more diverse were it to be "demographically accurate". So don't try and backpedal claiming it's not relevant.

    Also, since you refuse to address the fact that your own gallup poll link undercuts and destroys your GLAAD survey. I can only conclude you don't want to or cannot debate anymore.
    Dunning Kruger all over the place.

    You can't argue both that the methodology isn't transparent enough and that they have a demonstrable bias.

    The numbers being higher could be a sampling error, the result of the wording of the question, the means by which the survey was conducted, and the year in which it was done. Pretending there is a bias only highlights your own personal biases.

    Quoted the CDC report on an edit to post 1923.

    As for the rest, I really don't think you're understanding my comments as a response to Cephus' post. He was the one that introduced the demographics. What does it mean to be overrepresented?

    You think LGBT representation is "adequate." How do you quantify that?

    Yes, the show would be more diverse if it were cast to reflect "the real world." This is not an argument that screen time in star trek should be set to reflect each demographic.

    But if it were, does the Stamets/Culbert relationship actually take up a "disproportionate" amount of time on Trek?

    Do you not get that some questions are rhetorical?

    Addressed your survey nonsense already, but I'll add: Dunning-Kruger

    And you still haven't addressed what all your quibbling over the statistics has to do with Trek.
    Last edited by jlee562; 3 Weeks Ago at 3:00 AM.
  9. jlee562's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 2005
    From
    San Francisco
    Messages
    2,221
    3 Weeks Ago  Nov 15, 2017, 2:57 AM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #1934

    MrSouthpaw said: View Post
    @jlee562
    You said.....
    "A 'demographically accurate' show would be more diverse."

    Your Gallup poll says only 4.1% of surveyed ID as LGBT.

    What percentage of the main cast is LGBT? What percentage would it be if the cast were "demographically accurate"?
    "Show" =/= "main cast."
  10. Hammer3246's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 2007
    Messages
    593
    3 Weeks Ago  Nov 15, 2017, 2:59 AM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #1935

    "Space, the final frontier......not that there's anything wrong with that."
  11. Member Since
    Oct 2014
    From
    WA state
    Messages
    1,835
    3 Weeks Ago  Nov 15, 2017, 3:01 AM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #1936

    You understand DK about as well as you understand Bell Hooks. And since you are ignoring answers and mostly rambling, I see no reason to continue here.

    And "show" actually does kind of mean the main cast. Maybe not in a literal 1:1 sense, but they are basically the largest component.
  12. RPF Premium Member Cameron's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 2010
    From
    Irvine California
    Messages
    1,265
    3 Weeks Ago  Nov 15, 2017, 3:08 AM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #1937

  13. jlee562's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 2005
    From
    San Francisco
    Messages
    2,221
    3 Weeks Ago  Nov 15, 2017, 3:14 AM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #1938

    MrSouthpaw said: View Post
    You understand DK about as well as you understand Bell Hooks. And since you are ignoring answers and mostly rambling, I see no reason to continue here.

    And "show" actually does kind of mean the main cast. Maybe not in a literal 1:1 sense, but they are basically the largest component.
    Dude you made up a term that literally did not appear in that hooks text at all. And now you're demonstrating how little you actually retained by writing her name as Bell Hooks.

    So you think 4% of the 6 or 7 main cast members should be LGBT? How does that work?
  14. glunark's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jul 2013
    From
    Hull
    Messages
    2,134
    3 Weeks Ago  Nov 15, 2017, 7:30 AM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #1939

    It was a good kiss, the kind anyone would give their other half if they thought it might be the last time they could.

    Sent from my BLU LIFE MARK using Tapatalk
  15. DavidS's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 2005
    From
    South East
    Messages
    1,364
    3 Weeks Ago  Nov 15, 2017, 7:39 AM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #1940

    Can we stop disagreeing about demographics and get back to agreeing how crappy this show is.....


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  16. Member Since
    Jun 2008
    From
    Rocky Point, NY
    Messages
    2,318
    3 Weeks Ago  Nov 15, 2017, 9:53 AM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #1941

    I don't even remember what was being talked about for the last however many pages. I really don't care if there are gay people on Discovery, it doesn't change how I feel about the show, which even the I like the show as science fiction I absolutely hate it as Star Trek.
  17. BlobVanDam's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 2011
    From
    Sydney, Australia
    Messages
    789
    3 Weeks Ago  Nov 15, 2017, 1:39 PM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #1942

    I dislike the show as Star Trek, I dislike it as science fiction, and I dislike it as a TV show in general.
  18. Cephus's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 2015
    Messages
    828
    3 Weeks Ago  Nov 15, 2017, 1:54 PM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #1943

    BlobVanDam said: View Post
    I dislike the show as Star Trek, I dislike it as science fiction, and I dislike it as a TV show in general.
    Pretty much my thoughts as well. There are so many good shows out there, why waste time on this mindless nonsense?
  19. Member Since
    Oct 2014
    From
    WA state
    Messages
    1,835
    3 Weeks Ago  Nov 15, 2017, 2:30 PM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #1944

    jlee562 said: View Post
    Dude you made up a term that literally did not appear in that hooks text at all. And now you're demonstrating how little you actually retained by writing her name as Bell Hooks.

    So you think 4% of the 6 or 7 main cast members should be LGBT? How does that work?
    You "made up" the claim feminism is only for females and cited Hooks, when Hooks teaches the exact opposite. I would think that's a bigger error than not all-lower casing her pen name. Especially since it readily demonstrated that you never read her work and only cited it out of ignorance. Then you sent me an attack PM calling me a "snowflake", which is the kind of behavior that Hooks ascribes to "The patriarchy" as she puts it.

    Anyways, you're the one who "thinks" the show would be more diverse were it more "demographically accurate". So you can explain how that works. An easy start would be answering the questions in post #1932 instead of demurring with semantic arguments.
  20. jlee562's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 2005
    From
    San Francisco
    Messages
    2,221
    3 Weeks Ago  Nov 15, 2017, 4:24 PM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #1945

    MrSouthpaw said: View Post
    You "made up" the claim feminism is only for females and cited Hooks, when Hooks teaches the exact opposite. I would think that's a bigger error than not all-lower casing her pen name. Especially since it readily demonstrated that you never read her work and only cited it out of ignorance. Then you sent me an attack PM calling me a "snowflake", which is the kind of behavior that Hooks ascribes to "The patriarchy" as she puts it.

    Anyways, you're the one who "thinks" the show would be more diverse were it more "demographically accurate". So you can explain how that works. An easy start would be answering the questions in post #1932 instead of demurring with semantic arguments.
    Your recollection of that exchange is as faulty as your recollection of hook's pen name.

    I offered a link from Women At Warp which discussed feminist analysis of ST. You replied with something to the effect of "a feminist site offering to teach a method of feminist analysis...no bias there." I responded to you by saying "yes, feminists get to define feminism." This does not =/= "feminism is only for females." And as I said at the time, that would be totally nonsensical considering that I'm a male advocating for feminism. hooks was invoked when you claimed that the Women at Warp link did not offer a definition for feminism, despite the link to hook's work being embedded in the article.

    You then went on to explain your opinion that the background incidences of LGBT characters in ST are functionally the same to LGBT folks as Seven of Nine's consciously added sex-appeal. To this I replied that you were "man-splaining" gay male gaze. You got upset, saying that you would not continue a discussion without the use of "neutral language," because "man-splaining" was "sexist." I challenged you to cite where in hooks' text she defines the supposed "core concept of self" which you allege I misunderstand. She does not actually use that phrase anywhere in the text. Demanding "neutral language" from "man-splaining" is pretty, pretty, pretty hilarious in the context of any number of non-neutral comments made about "SJWs" in this thread and others.

    I'm the one that thinks that the main cast of Star Trek has always been deliberately chosen to display certain archetypes and not by demography. As I said, it was not random that Chekhov was Russian. They didn't just pick a random European. Discovery's inclusion of Stamets and Culbert is very much in the Trek tradition of envisioning a future free of the kinds of social conflicts of the present.

    As far as your question in post 1932, that's a strawman argument. "Show" =/= "main cast." Especially since we implicitly understand that the main cast are part of a larger crew and therefore not meant to be the sole representatives of what the ST universe looks like, but also because the context of the previous discussion was not limited to the main cast.

    Do note that when I initially made the comment about a "demographically accurate show" showing more diversity, the first thing I referenced was the global population of Asians. Firefly very smartly incorporated a lot of Chinese influence into their future world. Although we did get Michelle Yeoh for the premiere she's also named "Phillipa Georgiou" which might be interpreted as a not so subtle way to erase her Asian identity. Does that mean 60% of the "main cast" should be Asian? No. Why would it? The main cast is not a sample size large enough the breadth of human diversity (or human and alien diversity in the case of Trek) and we shouldn't expect the main cast to be the prefect demographic example because there's only a handful of them.

    Cephus is the one who brought up demography in the first place, so you might want to ask him what the relevance of bringing up the LGBT population is.
  21. Cephus's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 2015
    Messages
    828
    3 Weeks Ago  Nov 15, 2017, 5:41 PM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #1946

    Just wondering when the mods are going to show up and put an end to the political discussion, considering it is against the rules and all...
  22. LordHorusNL's Avatar
    Member Since
    Aug 2011
    From
    Rotterdam
    Messages
    40
    3 Weeks Ago  Nov 15, 2017, 5:49 PM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #1947

    I never knew the RPF was such a a wretched hive of scum (femenists) and villainy (SJW's)

    Anyways, did anybody else think it was weird that the Klingons did not know what a universal translator was? I'm not really up to speed on the lore before TNG so correct me if that's how it's always been.
  23. Bryancd's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 2002
    From
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Messages
    7,813
    3 Weeks Ago  Nov 15, 2017, 6:11 PM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #1948

    LordHorusNL said: View Post
    I never knew the RPF was such a a wretched hive of scum (femenists) and villainy (SJW's)

    Anyways, did anybody else think it was weird that the Klingons did not know what a universal translator was? I'm not really up to speed on the lore before TNG so correct me if that's how it's always been.
    They had them in TOS.
  24. Member Since
    Oct 2014
    From
    WA state
    Messages
    1,835
    3 Weeks Ago  Nov 15, 2017, 7:08 PM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #1949

    @jlee562 Just like every other time, you demure when asked pointed questions involving your own statements. Okay, conversation ended. And don't send me an angry rant PM again, okay?

    Also, you seem to be mistaking the population of the continent of Asia (60% of world pop) with Asiatic people. That's completely ignorant.
  25. PotionMistress's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jul 2011
    From
    Midwest USA
    Messages
    1,366
    3 Weeks Ago  Nov 15, 2017, 8:00 PM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #1950

    These last two episodes (Season 1:episodes 8 and 9), have been much better than what has come before. They have finally gotten into some real character development and personal exchange and you almost begin to have some sympathy for some of the characters. I like the developing relationship between Burnham and Tyler, and the Engineer Staments and the Doctor. But it's really not much considering we're 9 episodes in. They have actually had a timing and pacing that is somewhat Trek-like; where pieces of information have made some sense and are telling an actual story.... and THANKFULLY, I heard a few lines of Klingon translated instead of having to read it. So, I've liked the last two episodes and actually want to find out in January, (when it begins again), what is going to happen with everyone.

Similar Threads

  1. Star Wars Celebration 2017--Orlando, FL
    superjedi, Conventions and Prop Parties
    Replies: 205
    Last Post: Apr 24, 2017, 5:52 PM
  2. Discovery Museum NYC Star Wars Exhibit--Blaster Prop Question
    kitbasher, Star Wars Costumes and Props
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Dec 6, 2015, 11:37 AM
  3. Star Wars Greeblie Discovery Thread
    SofaKing01, Star Wars Costumes and Props
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: Jul 25, 2014, 8:41 AM
  4. Star Trek & Star Trek: Into Darkness... To Tour With Live Orchestras
    The Mad Professor, Entertainment and Movie Talk
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Apr 15, 2014, 7:23 PM
  5. Star Trek Movies, As Ranked By Star Trek Con-Goers
    Vivek, Entertainment and Movie Talk
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: Aug 13, 2013, 12:07 PM