Star Trek Discovery Gets Delayed Again As Spock's Father Is Cast (hollywoodreporter.com) 164
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Hollywood Reporter: CBS All Access' Star Trek: Discovery has been delayed again as the series continues casting. The revival for the streaming platform has cast James Frain as Spock's father, producer CBS Television Studios announced Wednesday, as sources confirm that the show's planned May debut has been pushed. "Production on Star Trek: Discovery begins next week. We love the cast, the scripts and are excited about the world the producers have created," reps for CBS All Access said in a statement. "This is an ambitious project; we will be flexible on a launch date if it's best for the show. We've said from the beginning it's more important to do this right than to do it fast. There is also added flexibility presenting on CBS All Access, which isn't beholden to seasonal premieres or launch windows." Frain will play Sarek, the famed father of Spock who was first introduced in the original Star Trek and who has made several appearances throughout the franchise's many incarnations over the past five decades. The CBS All Access show features the franchise's Enterprise, now known as the U.S.S. Discovery. The drama will introduce new characters seeking new worlds and civilizations while exploring the dramatic contemporary themes that have been a signature of the franchise since its inception in 1966. Star Trek: Discovery was originally scheduled to debut in January and was pushed back to May, with The Good Wife spinoff The Good Fight now set to be the first scripted offering on CBS All Access, the network's VOD platform. This marks the second delay for the series, which saw former showrunner Bryan Fuller step down to focus on his Starz drama American Gods.
Now known as... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Better check, the reportage itself might be accurate. I don't care enough to check, but it may well be that they are "breaking lore", so to speak, and making major storyline changes regarding early ST 'history' regarding early ST-universe starships bearing the "Enterprise" moniker. Because they can. And because they're great. Just ask them. Just look at the DC/Marvel franchise adherence to established lore and sto
Re:Comedy (Score:1)
Re:Now known as... (Score:4, Interesting)
ST: Discovery takes place before ST: Enterprise,
Are you sure? Seems like a series set in a pre-warp-drive era would mostly be about a bunch of space mariners playing Poker for years at a time. Everything I've seen says that the story is set in a similar time to TOS, just slightly earlier.
and the USS Enterprise, and Starfleet itself, were new in ST: Enterprise. USS Discovery is a pre-Starfleet ship.
There have already been 7 USS Enterprises to date (and an Enterprise without the USS designation that was operated first by the US Navy and later by the Fisheries Bureau). The name was apparently taken from the British Royal Navy which has operated 11 ships designated HMS Enterprise and 2 HMS Enterprize. The name first entered the Royal Navy when they captured a French ship called L'Entreprise.
The naming of the Enterprise in TOS was following the long line of US naval tradition, and the naming of the ship in TNG followed that tradition, and the naming of the ship in ST:E was again consistent with this tradition. But as I said, this naming tradition predates Starfleet by a considerable margin -- the first USS Enterprise was christened in 1775. So even if this series is pre-Starfleet (which it appears not to be), they could still quite easily have dubbed the ship Enterprise if they'd wanted to.
U,S.S. Discovery (Score:3)
"During San Diego Comic-Con, another teaser for the series was released — this one featuring the “test flight” of the U.S.S. Discovery, the space-traveling base of operations for the cast.
http://www.startrek.com/articl... [startrek.com]
http://www.digitaltrends.com/m... [digitaltrends.com]
Axanar (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because of eternal copyright, Axanar will probably never happen.
Axanar is a great idea for a story but until anybody can create a cartoon mouse and call it mickey, Axanar might only become real in an unpublished book.
Over The Top subscription streaming content (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? It's not like there is a shortage of space in, erm, space, is there?
There is plenty of room in the ocean, too.
The point is that the more wasted space you have, the harder it is to make something tough and maneuverable. Hence the reason the USS Defiant was so small.
It makes sense that a floating cruise ship like the Enterprise-D had such huge hallways. It even had daycare, which was part of the plot.
However, military/scientific vessels in the years before where everyone on board was working, and not a spouse or child, should have been focused on the mission and designed as s
Re: (Score:2)
Jumped the shark a long while ago (Score:5, Interesting)
I loved Star Trek. TOS, TNG, you name it. Big time fan.
It all ended when they decided to "reboot" the show and give it the boot, literally so. Of course you can't really continue a show with actors that are either ancient, dead or both, and you cannot do the TNG-dance every other decade because, well, how far can technology advance before humans become fully redundant because technology literally has the ability from "poof - you're dead" to "poof - you're alive". Face it, watching a bunch of Qs meddling with time and space isn't really funny, nobody wants to watch a show consisting entirely of Mary Sues.
One Wesley was already more than anyone could stomach.
Maybe I'm also not the target audience, being old and no longer the target focus for movies. I haven't seen the last few and I most likely also won't see this one. Sorry for the nostalgic shit, but Kirk, Spock, Bones and Scotty are four old guys that are dead now. Ok, one is technically still alive, but you get the idea. If they want to rewind time and put the setting back into the 2200s, why not show the adventures of another crew? It could have been woven into the old stories of the Enterprise to make old fans happy, if only for the "oh I see what you did there!" effect, while effectively not really bothering any new fans who probably know nothing about the original show (and let's be honest here, the 60s TV show is cheesy as fuck by today's standards). That could have rebooted the franchise for sure.
What do we get instead? Well, basically what we got is that all we "knew", what has been established as canon and the stories that happened before, all that is simply tossed into the garbage can and you're expected to start over. And that's simply not working as well as it could. First, Star Trek is anything but unique today. It was in the 1960s, there was very little competition in the SciFi arena and it could easily gain a foothold, even with stories that were even for the time often sub par. If you want to succeed in the SciFi genre today, you have to pump a LOT of money to get noticed. That is of course easier if you can boast a known name, but if that name has been hollowed out as it has been here, you're basically trashing it. What they did was to throw away an existing fan base instead of building upon it. Because now you have to win us over again, there isn't anything in this Star Trek that I'd recognize anymore. But ok, fine, give me a story that I can relate to and believable characters.
And that's where it fails. Again, with new characters this could have worked. But if you reuse characters, people have expectations. You expect Kirk to be brave, cynical, able to make one of two faces and suck in his belly for at least 200 episodes. You expect a cold, logical Spock devoid of emotions. And if that expectations are not met, your reaction is that it's "wrong". Which is kinda sad because the characters aren't that bad at all. They just don't fit the boots they have been put into.
Re: (Score:1)
It is going to be set shortly after the TOS era though, and this does still have its problems. There's a lot of established continuity that we're tied into; and Star Trek fans will remember every single throwaway line about Sarek, when we are meant to have encountered each race and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
It is going to be set shortly after the TOS era though,
10 years before actually.
Re:Jumped the shark a long while ago (Score:5, Informative)
Have you seen Star Trek Continues? You can watch it for free on YouTube. It has the original characters, Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu, Checkov, but played by new actors. They filmed it in the original style, 4:3 with the same lighting, music, even 60s style direction and camera angles. And it's brilliant. Better than the original series in many ways.
I guess they thought something like that would be too niche, or were not brave enough to have new actors do what amount to impressions of the old ones. The guy who plays Kirk in Continues has it down to perfection, every mannerism, speech pattern, facial expression...
But no, they went with the crappy reboot, which is basically an action movie in space, barely related to Trek at all. Generic, forgettable bad guys... Khan was nearly good, but ultimately under-used and overshadowed by the enemy-within storyline.
This new show, going back to the prime timeline, has the potential to be good. It's an interesting time in Trek's fictional history. Women apparently can't be starship captains, the Federation is fairly new and not as solid as it is by the Next Generation era. The galaxy is a more dangerous place, and people are still struggling to get to the level of social justice and post-everything society that we see a century later. It's just that there will be inevitable demands to make it action oriented and dumbed down, so it needs strong advocates for real Trek values and ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
Women are also rarely used as adversary, even though the female adversaries in any Star Trek movie or show were far, far more interesting, dangerous and cunning than their male counterparts. From the Borg Queen to Sela to that female founder, the female adversaries of the Star Trek universe were usually more memorable and a far better match to their Federation counterparts.
I mean, let's be honest, Tomalak was a pushover for Piccard, and so was Gowron.
Re: (Score:1)
Have you seen Star Trek Continues? [...] The guy who plays Kirk in Continues has it down to perfection, every mannerism, speech pattern, facial expression. [...]
He also does a hilarious Zapp Brannigan cameo, in a recent Futurama live-action fan film.
Re: (Score:2)
In my Opinion Star Trek started jumping the shark, where Sisco started to get super Profit powers, then it started to go down from there.
I Voyager technobabble plot points. I had strong hopes for Enterprise, until I realized their influence from the future guys right from the pilot episode. I was hoping for a story about real discovery, running into aliens that we may have known before, but struggling to accept their methods and ways. Running into problems where sometimes the episode will mean they can
Re: (Score:2)
In my Opinion Star Trek started jumping the shark, where Sisco started to get super Profit powers,
Quark was the one with the profit powers, Sisco/Cisco/Sisqó/Sisko only had prophet ones. ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
Profit powers? The way he complains about all he has is the little bar, you'd think he doesn't make very good profits.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how often it was "redecorated" by passing Klingons, Jem'Hadar and other minor and major catastrophes, and considering that it was always back in business an episode later, he couldn't be that bad a businessman...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I want to know what happens after the Dominion war. Stop going back in time.
Re: (Score:2)
Wesley was a mistake.
The Borg children were a mistake (Voyager).
Captain(less) Picard was a mistake. "We need to make a decision... quick, everyone to my ready room for a vote. Counselor tell us if our feelings are true on the matter!"
TOS, always the best Star Trek.
Re: (Score:2)
And maybe TOS was best because its three leads were archetypes; you had the brave and adventurous Horatio Hornblower figure in Kirk, you have the cold intellectual in the form of Spock, and you have the emotional and moralistic McCoy. Though the casting was never quite that intentional, it's pretty clear that by the first few first season scripts were being produced that Roddenberry and his writers understood the good fortune they had in the chemistry between Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley, and fleshed out those
Re: (Score:2)
Q was a nice plot device, and he was well used. An omnipotent being has no need for power games for he has any power he wants. What I especially liked was that they didn't try to make him a "god", i.e. someone craving worship, because anyone who had total power has no need for petty crap like that. He was quite believable. What would ultimate power eventually lead to? Boredom. That's exactly what happened with Q, and the Continuum. They were essentially incredibly bored. Bored enough that the exploits of an
Re: (Score:2)
I just doubt that it will.
What made TOS great was that it was controversial. That even carried over into TNG. It dared to touch topics that were an issue in its time. Racial tensions in the 60s, gender issues in the 90s. What's left for the 2010s? What topic could you touch without going SO far out that it turns cliche?
Re: (Score:2)
The new Trek is when it finally decided to grow some balls and get good.
When someone objects to an old song for using gender specific terms and tries to rewrite it to be less offensive to them, I tell them if you don't like the song, don't sing it. This is my view about reboots too. If the story is not good, don't tell it. If you want to tell a different story, tell a different story. Changing an existing story leaves you something that is not new and is not old. Move on and do something else instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I should indeed eventually get over the last movie...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wondering how they are going to get the actresses to wear the old uniform skirts.
Re: (Score:2)
Money?
But in all seriousness, I'd like to see the MEN in sexy outfit, just to see the audience reaction. Can you imagine Kirk in hot pants?
Re: (Score:2)
That would be entertaining, but isn't that why Kirk's shirt was always getting ripped on the away missions?
Re: (Score:2)
The Doctor doesn't have close to the powers Q has, which is good. An omnipotent, omniscient protagonist makes a very, very poor and boring story. Where's the challenge? Where's the room for character development? Where's the flaw that makes him likable?
Face it, perfect characters work well as foils, possibly as deus ex machinas and as plot device, but they should not be prominent characters.
Sounds like wrong approach... (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is the same kind of horrid drek as the "reboot" universe (AKA, the Teen angst IN SPAAAACE universe), then again, hollywood DOES NOT UNDERSTAND.
Startrek was a huge success, because it preached a message of a non-militaristic, peaceful, and progressive future.
Look at the reboot movies-- Rigid militarism, politicians lying their fucking asses off and scheming to perform illegal acts, horrible writing to justify explosions-- horrid horrid drek.
The "Need" to "reboot" the series comes from some idiots in a board room feeling that the original message of the series was stilted, and not in line with modern audiences.
Guess what, the ORIGINAL series was considered "Unsuited for modern audiences" back in the 60s too! FOR THE SAME REASONS.
No, idiots in the board room-- it DOES NOT need more boobie time, more teen angst, bad drama, or more explosions. What it needs, is that original formula of "A better future than one ruled by horrible corporations, big money, and authoritarian government *IS* possible, and this is how it can happen".
If you fail to deliver that, you are not delivering star trek.
Star Trek was a subtle mixture (Score:2)
Startrek was a huge success, because it preached a message of a non-militaristic, peaceful, and progressive future... No, idiots in the board room-- it DOES NOT need more boobie time, more teen angst, bad drama, or more explosions. What it needs, is that original formula of "A better future than one ruled by horrible corporations, big money, and authoritarian government *IS* possible, and this is how it can happen".
You hear this sentiment very frequently these days, but it's only half true. Even if we limit ourselves for the moment to just TOS and TNG, and it's clear that not every episode had such hopeful social themes. I don't even think the majority of them did. What were the hopeful themes of "The Trouble with Tribbles" or "The Doomsday Machine" or "The Best of Both Worlds" or "All Good Things" or "Goddamnit, the Holodeck Is On the Fritz Again"? And sure, the Federation tried to be peaceful if possible but there
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, however, it seems to me that the direction CBS and Paramount want to take the series is "GI-Joe in space, with boobies and lasers!-- Oh, and throw in some really crooked corporations and government officials too! Everyone relates to those!"
They seem to REALLY want to paint a very dystopian view of where humanity will end up, making any upbeat message of the series into a hollow sounding cliche that not even a koolaid drinker could swallow.
That, and not even a token effort at rigorous scifi. (
Re: (Score:2)
Meh. Most of the Star Trek movies were pretty bad. So that isn't really a fair comparison. The last "reboot" was Enterprise. and while yes it was pretty bad also, I have to admit that it wasn't all bad. They had some parts that were pretty good. Most notably for me was the episode where trip got drunk which really just comprised of two actors talking like in a play, then once they stopped taking themselves so seriously they had the episode where the did the time travel thing to the original universe with th
Re: (Score:2)
Enterprise could have been incredible, and there were brief glimpses here and there, and particularly in the fourth season, when it became clear that it wasn't going to be renewed. If Enterprise had been about the founding of the Federation, if it had paid more attention to the cold war between the Andorians and the Vulcans, if it had spent some time on the human supremacist movement on Earth, instead of squandering so much screen time on that idiotic "Temporal Cold War" crap in the first three seasons, and
Re: (Score:2)
Do I really need to approach this?
DS9 plot synopsis:
A guy with PTSD gets given command of a space station in the middle of a war zone, because the federation is stupid, and apparently cant assign duty postings without Q holding their hands.
He is naturally, not very capable, due to his PTSD.
The warzone theme of the series harps really hard on the militaristic side of the federation, (Seeing as we have a revolving badguy trope here, with the Cardassians, then the Jem-Hadar, and then the changelings before fin
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, when he was put in place, it was a backwater little desk posting, exactly like it should have been. He was literally in charge of cleaning up the physical mess left behind by the Cardassians.
Then they discover the wormhole, and Star Fleet wants to put somebody appropriate in charge, but they have to appease the locals, who now view The Sisko as the Emissary.
At least, that's how I remember it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Just not a whore looking for dollars, slapping branding on something it does not belong on.
If you want flashy explosions and bad politics, go watch star wars.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet the reboot movies have been hugely successful, bringing in a wider and more varied audience than the aging autistic weirdos that were associated with the franchise. You're out of touch with reality, sorry. :)
Imagine Ford relaunched the Fiesta as a sofa. Now imagine it was a really good sofa and really popular. Is still wouldn't be a Ford Fiesta. It wouldn't bring a new audience to the "Ford Fiesta".
Or imagine I built a theme park and called it Edinburgh Castle. Would it be bringing a new and young audience to Edinburgh Castle? No, because it wouldn't really be Edinburgh Castle.
My point: if you want to make something new, go ahead and do it; just don't pretend you're not making something new. JJ Abrams' Star T
Sorry, im not a trekkie anymore (Score:2, Funny)
Jar-Jar Abrams cured me.
I dont have any interest it watching "GI-Joe in space"
Re: (Score:3)
Jar-Jar Abrams cured me.
What are you talking about, Abrams never worked on Star Trek.
*rocks back and forth* Abrams never worked on Star Trek. Abrams never worked on Star Trek.
It's going to suck anyway (Score:3)
I'll catch the 1st episode but I don't have high hopes.
Dramatic contemporary issues (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, like one that has actual antimatter particles whirling around inside it, and possibly leaking deadly gamma rays wasn't edgy enough? ;)
meh (Score:1)
And I should give a damn why, exactly? (Score:2)
From comic book dictionary (Score:2)
canon: (noun)
What some writer decides today what happened in a fictitious past. This is primarily caused by s/he wanting a personal thumbprint on a character set combined with an inability to imagine extensions to current story lines. In most cases this leads to conflict in story lines that produce confusion in the readership and at times actual outrage at the bastardization and extreme vandalism of admired characters (see Green Lantern).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've never been a Star Trek fan, it's an ok (collection of) series and I enjoyed most of the movies but it never really grabbed me to the point where I'd make sure to watch every episode. But for some reason I really got into Enterprise. Until the time travel story line, yes.
I also like Enterprise, especially for its "stuff isn't quite ready for space travel" and the Vulcan's "we have to help the poor earthlings and not let them hurt themselves as they venture out" approach. The time travel story line jumped the shark; and the alternate universe one, "In a Mirror, Darkly," involving the Tholian Web and some real promise. A ST:Empire with the Klingons as good guys had a lot of potential.
Re: (Score:2)
I also like Enterprise, especially for its "stuff isn't quite ready for space travel" and the Vulcan's "we have to help the poor earthlings and not let them hurt themselves as they venture out" approach. The time travel story line jumped the shark; and the alternate universe one, "In a Mirror, Darkly," involving the Tholian Web and some real promise. A ST:Empire with the Klingons as good guys had a lot of potential.
I liked it because they had "marines" as boarding parties.
Re: (Score:2)
I also like Enterprise, especially for its "stuff isn't quite ready for space travel" and the Vulcan's "we have to help the poor earthlings and not let them hurt themselves as they venture out" approach. The time travel story line jumped the shark; and the alternate universe one, "In a Mirror, Darkly," involving the Tholian Web and some real promise. A ST:Empire with the Klingons as good guys had a lot of potential.
I liked it because they had "marines" as boarding parties.
Yes, that added a bit of nautical authenticity.
Re: (Score:2)
I liked it because they had "marines" as boarding parties.
Yes, that added a bit of nautical authenticity.
It was more because it is such an obvious thing to have for both attack and defense. Of course using them for attack will be problematical later when shields become ubiquitous preventing transporters from being used but then how is it that they are only used for defense under the same conditions which would allow attack? I liked Enterprise *more* than most of the other series.
I write it up as just another unrealistically idealistic concept in the Star Trek universe along with the usual collection of plot
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in the minority where the time war and the Xindi stuff where my favorite parts of the show.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't hate the time war. I thought it was interesting, albeit I wish we had seen some of it in other shows. The Xindi stuff was ok, but a bit long.
Re: (Score:3)
Could be worse: Star Trek: Voyager was effectively "Gilligan's Isle" in space. Without Ginger OR Mary-Ann
Re: (Score:2)
Or a laugh track... or anything to laugh it.
Man it was a dire series.
Re:Dramatic contemporary issues (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, a Borg with breasts and so prominent at that never made sense to me. Especially since Jeri Ryan's breasts weren't as prominent when she was on "Leverage". They could have gone with a Borgs want to be the best so she had to have the best breasts bit, but the matter was never addressed, ever.
it was purely a strategic matter. if you see a regular Borg lurching towards you, you'd run. most guys confronted with Seven of Nine would at least pause for a few seconds to ogle.. long enough for the nanoprobes to come out.
of her arm extension. i know what you were thinking. don't go there.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to say this: Enterprise is hands down the best Star Trek series of all, even betterthan (but only just) TOS.
The Next Generation was bad scripts, random plots, and bad actors (and yes I'm including Patrick Stewart). The two others that followed were quite simply jokes. The only decent characters between TOS and Enterprise were an android and a comedian.
Enterprise had a purpose, a back story, evolution, consistency, sustainable discovery, no creators' pets, treated race naturally instead of stuffin
Re:Dramatic contemporary issues (Score:4, Informative)
Star Trek has always been "SJW". Its vision of the future is idealized, mostly free from prejudice and highly progressive, mostly atheist in the Federation, and with a strong sense of fairness and social justice. Many, many episodes are based on some kind of prejudice or social injustice, and the members of Starfleet getting involved and resolving them.
For example, Data is a machine but has at least some of the rights afforded to other lifeforms, which he had to repeatedly fight for, awful SJWs that he and his friends and advocates were. There were numerous TOS episodes where they alluded to race relations. In The Drumhead a rabid right wing nut starts a McCarthyesq witch hunt for enemies of the federation, and Picard defends her victim's rights with an impassioned speech.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Dramatic contemporary issues (Score:5, Insightful)
And here, I suspect, you hit the nail on the head - that not all "social justice" is equal.
A person may look at old Trek exploring themes of interracial relationships, homosexuality, racism, sexism, and say "Superb work. I'm delighted to see this being explored".
And yet, the same person may well turn around and say "Facebook allows for 71 genders - hm. This seems a little odd to me".
If it's the kind of social justice that explores the former issues, I'm sure many people will welcome it.
If it's the kind that explores the latter, I'm sure you will welcome it.
Re:Dramatic contemporary issues (Score:5, Interesting)
And yet, the same person may well turn around and say "Facebook allows for 71 genders - hm. This seems a little odd to me".
That's the kind of thing that Trek was great at forcing the viewer to question. They meet all these alien races, some of them androgynous, some of them with three or five or 71 genders, and the viewer accepts it because they are aliens. That acceptance and normalization of the concept then transfers to humans, if only a little.
There was an episode of TNG with an androgynous race where any kind of gender was seen as abhorrent, and of course Riker turned one of them female. There are also the Trill race, of which DS9's Dax was a member, where they often switch gender when changing hosts. I recall an episode of Enterprise where there was a three gender race too, with the third gender being treated as little more than a breeding animal.
Re: (Score:3)
I recall an episode of Enterprise where there was a three gender race too, with the third gender being treated as little more than a breeding animal.
Not a particularly good episode (but then again, that was par for the course with Enterprise) but the basic premise was pretty imaginative (although they chickened out and had the really interesting bit delivered through crappy expository dialogue: trying to emancipate the third-gender individual ultimately led to her suicide (I say "her" because they used a female actor and there was clear parallels to women's rights, and also because I can't bring myself to call a person "it") and a dressing down from the
Re: (Score:2)
I recall an episode of Enterprise where there was a three gender race too, with the third gender being treated as little more than a breeding animal.
It was too bad they did not take that to the extreme (or not extreme since it actually exists) that Niven did with the Puppeteers.
Re: (Score:3)
You do know that there aren't really aliens right? Humans only have two genders (perhaps 3).
That depends on what you mean by genders. I prefer the feminist usage of the term -- that gender are the social norms expected by society of people of a given biological sex. We can extend that to the idea that we have created additional expected norms for non-heterosexuals -- for example, the highly camp persona typified by the Rocky Horror Picture Show could be considered a social construct that we apply to homosexual males, even though it restricts and incorrectly represents the population, and is thus a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not all of us of course. Mainly those who unreservedly supported either of the two major candidates. I don't know the breakdown among those who supported the other candidates or like me didn't support any.
At the risk of starting a fight, isn't it closed-minded to forget that there are other countries out there, and that your presidential race wasn't a global election...?
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that there aren't really aliens right? Humans only have two genders (perhaps 3).
They aren't really aliens because they are all the same species. How that was suppose to be remotely real I have no idea and it among other things makes Star Trek fantasy instead of science fiction. Babylon 5 even teased Star Trek about it.
Egalitarian means egalitarian (Score:3)
And yet, the same person may well turn around and say "Facebook allows for 71 genders - hm. This seems a little odd to me".
Non-SJW liberals/leftists shouldn't be aggrieved by what people choose to self-identify as, so long as they don't demand special rights or considerations that others don't have access to. Egalitarian means egalitarian.
If you think that the voluntary self-identifications and hobbies of the Tumblrsphere are a problem with today's society, or if you believe that what is in between a person's legs should define them socially, that's a socially conservative stance to take (and one that I'm against.) But if,
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Egalitarians are SJWs according to the conservatives on Slashdot. Every time I show support for it I get accused of being one (as if I care).
In fact pretty much every main character on Star Trek is an SJW, by the standards of Free Speech Warriors. Starfleet is tyrannical because you can't just commandeer the comms system any time you like to broadcast your messages. They don't even have social media and speech has consequences enforced by the character's reactions to it. You can even lose your job for sayin
Re: (Score:3)
Your average outspoken, self-identified SJW does not believe in this.
Egalitarians are SJWs according to the conservatives on Slashdot.
I think you'll find that many of those people decrying SJWs are centrists, classical liberals, libertarians and even p
Re: (Score:2)
In that case I don't think there is an agreed definition of SJW, because I'm often accused of being one but am an egalitarian.
Maybe I need to bring my old .sig back.
Re: (Score:2)
But if they more or less just demand to be not discriminated against for no reason other than what they do in private? That's pretty much fine. That's egalitarian.
I want them to see a therapist not embrace their choice of identity.
That's not your call to make. I want observant Christians, Jews and Muslims to see therapists. I want people who think soccer is interesting to... well, maybe not see
Re: (Score:2)
or an epidemic of owl-rape,
That seems like it might cause serious trama to the owl, unless the guy has a seriously tiny pecker.
Re: (Score:1)
They've already done three genders [wikia.com] and post-gender [wikia.com] so why the fuck not 71 genders.
Re: (Score:2)
Also reversed genders:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Star Trek was never SJW (Score:5, Interesting)
Star Trek has always been "SJW".
Ah, but I don't ever recall hearing the phrase "check your privilege", do you? I don't recall anyone screaming in O'Brien's face that he was a racist as he struggled to deal with the fact that he was uncomfortable around Cardassians due to his experiences in the war. I don't recall Picard making all kinds of special allowances for Worf's behavior as a proud Klingon living in a society where Klingons are extremely rare and Klingon stereotypes are constantly bandied about--on the contrary, he often insisted that Worf completely set aside all cultural biases in the name of duty. I don't recall calls for safe spaces or neo-segregation. In fact, this was pushed back against numerous times, particularly in DS9.
And perhaps most illustrative of all, I really don't recall the leading males being demonized even if they exhibited aggressive sexual advances. Of course TOS leaps to mind, but I also recall an episode of ST:TNG where it's strongly implied that a woman who accuses Riker of attempted rape not only made it up, but is actually so self-delusional that she herself believes that that's what happened [wikipedia.org]. Women can not only lie about sexual assault, but they can be completely self-delusional about it... and no one even bothered charging the man with sexual assault because there was no other evidence of it other than the woman's word. Yeah. So. Name me one SJW feminist who is OK with that.
I don't know or much care about how the right sloppily uses labels like "SJW". For the rest of us, centrists and egalitarian leftists alike, it indicates first and foremost the anti-egalitarian, pro-identity politics, victimhood-obsessed sections of the left.
And that was never what Star Trek was about.
Re: (Score:1)
The SJWs in Star Trek don't need to be vocal, because feminism, post-racial equality and the like are the norm. They don't need to tell people to check their privilege because people are generally very much aware of it. For example, Picard acknowledges Ro's difficult past as someone living under brutal occupation without her having to really explain it, and doesn't question her lived experiences.
As for special allowances, Worf murders at least two Klingons I can remember while serving in Starfleet. Picard i
Re: (Score:2)
As for special allowances, Worf murders at least two Klingons I can remember while serving in Starfleet. Picard is his captain at the time of the first one (Duros) and basically lets it side.
He's pissed as hell and comes very close to asking Worf to resign, despite it being a completely legal killing under Klingon law and being done "off the clock", not in Worf's official capacities. The second one I'm assuming is from late-season DS9, which (at that point) wasn't a very progressive-oriented show at all beyond perhaps Bashir's pushback against Section 31.
If you want to see the cultural sensitivity with which Worf's gruff, stoic, pragmatic Klingon attitudes and ideas were generally met, you n
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly fired... For murder. A harsh punishment indeed.
Re:Star Trek was never SJW (Score:4, Insightful)
We're veering a bit off track, though. My point is the version of liberalism that Star Trek tended to embody was not of a separatist, relativist, identity politic-oriented sort. You said in your previous reply that this was because they've already achieved perfect equality, but this obviously isn't true regarding alien races (particularly the Cardassians and Klingons.)
If Roddenberry wished his works embody the perpetual-victimhood and relativist narratives that have existed in one form or another at least since the mid-twentieth century, he could have done so. But he did not.
Re: (Score:2)
My argument had nothing to do with the legalistic structure and rules of Starfleet. The point wasn't whether or not Picard had the legal right to threaten Worf about his extracurricular actives; it was the fact that (contrary to what AmiMoJo was saying) it wasn't a very good example of SJW-ish toleration of other culture's customs.
The Ferengi are a better example. Of the writers, once again, failing to not fall into a trap of stereotypes. That's not liberalism, or any politics at all, that's bad writing.
As you say, that has nothing to do with politics (and thus nothing to do with my
Re: (Score:2)
"Check your solid privilege at the door! The changlings are waging a perfectly legitimate struggle against the power structures that have kept them oppressed for millennia."
See? This is you spouting off, as I mentioned already. Again, that's your narrative idea about something. Now if you want to look at the Changelings...
No, that was a joke. That's why I put that sentence in quotes. The sentence immediately before said that late season DS9 *didn't* have SJW themes. I was exploring, in an over the top fashion, what it might look like if one tried to inject SJW themes into it.
Good, because those exist as the plot demands.
Yes, but the plot demands broadly parallel the tone that the series creators and directors (including but not limited to Roddenberry) wanted to set. The fact that many plot points are illogical or inconsisten
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly like any modern "SJW". Find me one SJW who wouldn't be pissed as hell at say a Pakistani neighbor committing an "honor killing" of his sister. We support muslim rights and cultural differences, but never the right to murder in the name of culture.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly like any modern "SJW". Find me one SJW who wouldn't be pissed as hell at say a Pakistani neighbor committing an "honor killing" of his sister. We support muslim rights and cultural differences, but never the right to murder in the name of culture.
Duras rather deserved it; he had just murdered Worf's lover / mother of his son. The sister (presumably) does not deserve it. To further clarify, the "murder" took place on a Klingon ship, without Worf representing himself as a Starfleet officer[1], and wasn't considered a crime under Klingon law.
I'm not altogether sure this specific incident is a great example of an anti-SJW slant (I wasn't the one who brought it up), but it doesn't appear very pro-SJW, either. Prime Directive be damned; the values o
Re: (Score:2)
I'm getting modded troll on my original post, and will probably get knocked down here to, but I d
Re: (Score:2)
but if the writers are going to really lean in on contemporary issues are we going to have a safe space instead of a rec room?
Are you calling Trump an SJW now?
Re: (Score:2)
but if the writers are going to really lean in on contemporary issues are we going to have a safe space instead of a rec room?
Are you calling Trump an SJW now?
He wrote rec room, not padded room.
Re: (Score:2)
He wrote rec room, not padded room.
ITYM "the whitehouse".
WTF.
Re: (Score:2)
Stark Trek has always been socially progressive, but that's NOT the same as SJW.
Socially progressive = being tolerant of all races, genders, creeds, etc.
SJW = lionizing certain races, creeds, genders while villainizing others.
And, sadly, ST:Discovery has all the earmarks of an SJW smug-fest. Notice how there isn't a single straight white (human) male in the crew? Nope, but you can bet they'll get plenty of the villain roles. In SJW-world, straight white males are ALWAYS the villains now.
This is especially d
Re: (Score:2)
Anthony Rapp seems to be playing a white, human male. The actor is Christian too. Doug Jones is white and male, but apparently not human. I haven't read anything about those characters being gay either.
To be honest, it seems like you are pre-judging this a lot. I can bet there will be lots of white male (human) villains? That's a reach, chances are most of them will be aliens as is usual in Trek.
There is no agreed definition of SJW, it's basically "someone I disagree with and villainize to make myself feel
Re: (Score:2)
I figured they'd fuck it up. Star Trek: SJW
Star Trek has been pretty much the poster child for social justice issues since it's conception. It was a very explicit goal of Roddenberry. Martin Luther King Jr himself approved of the show. You might have heard of that chap.
If you think social justice has no place in Star Trek, then you haven't actually paid any attention, and seem to engage it on little more than the level of "herp derp space".
So please keep your silly, regressive non-social-justive crap out of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dont you know? EVERYONE orients the false gravity of their vessels to the galactic ecliptic plane! /s
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
What part of IDIC do you not understand?