test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Da big *NEW TREK TV SHOW* thread!

14647495152101

Comments

  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    hawku001x wrote: »
    lordrezeon wrote: »
    The real question is which version of the Klingons will this be... will it be the classic Klingons who were sophisticated and cunning, or will it be more like the 24th century Klingons who were space Vikings.

    Also, ridges or no ridges? Hmmm.

    Why not both?
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 10,834 Arc User
    hawku001x wrote: »
    Also, ridges or no ridges? Hmmm.

    Ridges, since they always had them pig-3.gif

    Seriously, I would wish for the augment nonsense to be ignored so badly and simply returning to the origial design choice to simply leave 60s Klingons an in-joke but simply assume it's been always "modern" Klingons all along.​​
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • daveynydaveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    Both type of Klingons would be my preference as well.

    It could certainly be set up as a comparison to today's Muslim (ridge-less foreheads) vs Christian (ridged foreheads) crisis currently going on and be a wonderful addition of a "B" storyline for the overall season.

    Giving the Klingons something to rail against (their own internal bigotry) beside the Federation, would certainly be new.
    B)
    STO Member since February 2009.
    I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
    Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
    upside-down-banana-smiley-emoticon.gif
  • khan5000khan5000 Member Posts: 3,005 Arc User
    Can we take the look of the modern Klingon but give them the sensibilities of the shoe polish one?
    Your pain runs deep.
    Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
  • daveynydaveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    So I guess we have been told who the "LGBT" character will be in the show...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/star-trek-discovery-anthony-rapp_us_583ef9eee4b0ae0e7cdb1743

    B)
    STO Member since February 2009.
    I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
    Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
    upside-down-banana-smiley-emoticon.gif
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    lordrezeon wrote: »
    It is hard to escape the Starfleet bias when the Federation by design is openly stated within the story to be a utopian society. Much like how by TNG the Enterprise became elevated to being the most important ship in the fleet, with the handpicked best crew, etcetera. Aliens will always be little more than foils to make the Federation look good.

    The real question is which version of the Klingons will this be... will it be the classic Klingons who were sophisticated and cunning, or will it be more like the 24th century Klingons who were space Vikings.


    I'm personally more curious as to what they intend to do with this Lt. Stamets character, being a fungus expert seems a tad to specialized for a main character role... unless they are combating hostile alien fungus-men. (imagines the Federation at war with the Mushroom Kingdom from Super Mario Bros.)
    Elachi...
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    daveyny wrote: »
    So I guess we have been told who the "LGBT" character will be in the show...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/star-trek-discovery-anthony-rapp_us_583ef9eee4b0ae0e7cdb1743

    B)
    I just think it's sad that they need to use something like this to try and generate interest... :( Things like this do nothing to increase tolerance, and do nothing more than highlight someone for no reason other than their sexuality, as if there's nothing else about them worth mentioning... That kind of boxed-in thinking makes me sad...

    It's pretty clear that he's going to fully immerse himself in the lore in preparation, so thumbs up to the dude B)

  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 9,763 Arc User
    Okay, so it's terrible if an existing character (like, say, Sulu) is retconned to be either g.ay or bi, and it's terrible if a brand new g.ay character is introduced.

    Should Starfleet just install closets on all their ships and be done with it? Or is it only okay if they're female?​​
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • hawku001xhawku001x Member Posts: 10,664 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    I believe they also mentioned his profession. I don't think these articles are trying to generate interest; I think there already is interest and the articles are trying to report on any tidbit that comes out about the show. If anything, it's the news websites who use whatever they can to get hits, and that includes reporting on everything equally about a show that has a large fanbase.

    Even if anyone percieves the method of this information release as negative (even though we live in an information age now), it's dispropotionate to the importance of what the content is about.
    Post edited by hawku001x on
  • daveynydaveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    More from Bryan Fuller as to why he had to step down as Line Producer and is not going to be involved at all beyond the initial storyline...

    http://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/791483-bryan-fuller-opens-up-about-star-trek-discovery-exit

    I didn't realize that he was completely off the series at this point.
    That's a bit disappointing.

    B)
    STO Member since February 2009.
    I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
    Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
    upside-down-banana-smiley-emoticon.gif
  • khan5000khan5000 Member Posts: 3,005 Arc User
    They are not using the characters sexuality to draw interest. Star Trek was always about inclusivity. If you look at how diverse the cast was in TOS and at that time period it came out you'll see that they are just continuing what Roddenberry started
    Your pain runs deep.
    Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    Okay, so it's terrible if an existing character (like, say, Sulu) is retconned to be either g.ay or bi, and it's terrible if a brand new g.ay character is introduced.

    Should Starfleet just install closets on all their ships and be done with it? Or is it only okay if they're female?​​
    Do you go out of your way to deliberately find a way to misinterpret what I say? Or are you genuinely that incapable of understanding others?

    Let me put it in a way you might understand:

    If the writers of a show wanted to write about a character who happened to be an aspie Doing A job which had nothing whatsoever to do with them being an aspie, but felt the need to announce that they are specifically writing about an aspie character, and hired an aspie actor, would you not see that they were just focussing on that label to the exclusion of all other things, and making it seem that Nothing Else Whatsoever about the character was as noteworthy as them being an aspie?

    Oh, they've said that he's also an expert on fungi, so that makes it okay...

    In the words of Zefram Cochrane: Sweet Jesus...


  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    khan5000 wrote: »
    They are not using the characters sexuality to draw interest. Star Trek was always about inclusivity. If you look at how diverse the cast was in TOS and at that time period it came out you'll see that they are just continuing what Roddenberry started
    That's a crock, and you know it... If they were truly interested in showing inclusivity and diversity, they would not even mention it prior to release, they would just let it be revealed through the stories upon release... Same as the announcement of making Sulu g.ay prior to the release of Beyond: It's done For Publicity... Also, given that Gene would not allow two g.ay crew-members to be holding hands in The Naked Now, don't try and pass this off as something Gene would have sanctioned, because his past behaviour clearly shows that he would not...

  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    daveyny wrote: »
    More from Bryan Fuller as to why he had to step down as Line Producer and is not going to be involved at all beyond the initial storyline...

    http://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/791483-bryan-fuller-opens-up-about-star-trek-discovery-exit

    I didn't realize that he was completely off the series at this point.
    That's a bit disappointing.

    B)
    :D:D:D:D
    Ha!

    I f*cking knew it! I said this weeks ago, but oh no, I didn't know what I was talking about... Ha!

    I called it! :D:D
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 9,763 Arc User
    When the series "The Bridge" started on FX, it was announced on Wrongplanet.net that the lead character would be an aspie, and that in fact they had hired Alex Plank, founder of the website, as a consultant. (He even got a small recurring part later.)

    That drummed up some interest in the aspie community - not an expectation that the only important factor about the character was her neurological condition (she was also a woman, working with a Mexican detective on a murder case that happened on a border-crossing bridge), but an interest that "one of ours" was going to get some kind of open representation on TV. (It's certainly an improvement over the incredibly stereotyped nerds we generally get - cf "The Big Bang Theory" for examples).

    It's just amazing to me that out of all the words of description the character received, you focused on his sexuality (which was mentioned only in passing), rather than on the rather odd specification that he was a xenomycologist. (I mean, I can see the need for Starfleet to hire generalized xenobiologists - but a xenomycologist in particular??)

    And again, there's the signal that some people simply cannot be satisfied. "Don't make existing characters TRIBBLE, make new ones!"

    "Okay, here's a brand-new character. He's a lieutenant, he studies alien fungi, he's attached to the new ship. Oh, by the way, he's married to a man."

    "Hey, why are you making this brand-new TRIBBLE character, just like I was demanding a few minutes ago??"

    Seriously, Marcus, if you can't see that coming across in your response, perhaps some personal introspection is in order. Congratulating yourself on "being a jerk" (as you have) is one thing, but there should be some sort of limiter, n'est-ce pas?​​
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    When the series "The Bridge" started on FX, it was announced on Wrongplanet.net that the lead character would be an aspie, and that in fact they had hired Alex Plank, founder of the website, as a consultant. (He even got a small recurring part later.)

    That drummed up some interest in the aspie community - not an expectation that the only important factor about the character was her neurological condition (she was also a woman, working with a Mexican detective on a murder case that happened on a border-crossing bridge), but an interest that "one of ours" was going to get some kind of open representation on TV. (It's certainly an improvement over the incredibly stereotyped nerds we generally get - cf "The Big Bang Theory" for examples).

    It's just amazing to me that out of all the words of description the character received, you focused on his sexuality (which was mentioned only in passing), rather than on the rather odd specification that he was a xenomycologist. (I mean, I can see the need for Starfleet to hire generalized xenobiologists - but a xenomycologist in particular??)

    And again, there's the signal that some people simply cannot be satisfied. "Don't make existing characters ****, make new ones!"

    "Okay, here's a brand-new character. He's a lieutenant, he studies alien fungi, he's attached to the new ship. Oh, by the way, he's married to a man."

    "Hey, why are you making this brand-new **** character, just like I was demanding a few minutes ago??"

    Seriously, Marcus, if you can't see that coming across in your response, perhaps some personal introspection is in order. Congratulating yourself on "being a jerk" (as you have) is one thing, but there should be some sort of limiter, n'est-ce pas?​​
    No. Because I am f*cking SICK of you CONSTANTLY misinterpreting what I say -- deliberately or otherwise -- and am sick of biting my tongue about it! If you don't agree with me, fine, don't agree with me, but don't be so damn arrogant as to think that just because you disagree with what I say, means that I am WRONG! YOU are the one on the AS Spectrum, not me... You're the one with the diagnosed inability to read social-interractions, not me! I've explained my point, and if you can't understand what I was trying to say from those two posts, then don't understand them -- I'm not explaining my meaning further. So don't understand them, but don't presume to challenge them, just agree to disagree and say nothing...

  • dalolorndalolorn Member Posts: 3,655 Arc User
    @jonsills He does have a point. Highlighting the character's sexuality like this is unlikely to help with the underlying problem, and is more useful as a PR stunt than anything else - exposing it during the story, letting it come out naturally in its own way, would be a much more dignified solution.

    @marcusdkane Calm. Down. You present valid points, but the moment anyone disagrees with those points, you shroud them in so much hostility that a lot of people are likely to just respond with more hostility, causing exactly the sort of escalation that can be seen in the past half-dozen posts or so. (For the record, I'd probably counter your responses the same way if I were in Jon's shoes. Clearly it wouldn't be on this particular subject, seeing as I'm already agreeing with you, but the point remains.)

    Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.p3OEBPD6HU3QI.jpg
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    dalolorn wrote: »
    @jonsills He does have a point. Highlighting the character's sexuality like this is unlikely to help with the underlying problem, and is more useful as a PR stunt than anything else - exposing it during the story, letting it come out naturally in its own way, would be a much more dignified solution.

    @marcusdkane Calm. Down. You present valid points, but the moment anyone disagrees with those points, you shroud them in so much hostility that a lot of people are likely to just respond with more hostility, causing exactly the sort of escalation that can be seen in the past half-dozen posts or so. (For the record, I'd probably counter your responses the same way if I were in Jon's shoes. Clearly it wouldn't be on this particular subject, seeing as I'm already agreeing with you, but the point remains.)
    Thank you B)
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 10,834 Arc User
    dalolorn wrote: »
    @jonsills He does have a point. Highlighting the character's sexuality like this is unlikely to help with the underlying problem, and is more useful as a PR stunt than anything else - exposing it during the story, letting it come out naturally in its own way, would be a much more dignified solution.
    (...)

    If I may offer another point of view - I would agree from a mere storytelling/character presenting POV. However, homosexual characters in popular culture shows is a real life issue. Announcing that the show will include not only a homosexual actor but also a homosexual role helps the minority in question to feel recognized. Which is quite a bit when there are people ticking out at the very mention of your nature as if you have done something wrong. Of course the way it is done is very important, I for example still cosnider Beyond's take unlucky but for different reasons. But once you are told that by merely mentioning you include a group in a completely natural process (a state we simply haven't reached yet, as a society) you are "catering" to anybody, it hurts. Your experiences may vary of course.​​
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    angrytarg wrote: »
    dalolorn wrote: »
    @jonsills He does have a point. Highlighting the character's sexuality like this is unlikely to help with the underlying problem, and is more useful as a PR stunt than anything else - exposing it during the story, letting it come out naturally in its own way, would be a much more dignified solution.
    (...)

    If I may offer another point of view - I would agree from a mere storytelling/character presenting POV. However, homosexual characters in popular culture shows is a real life issue. Announcing that the show will include not only a homosexual actor but also a homosexual role helps the minority in question to feel recognized. Which is quite a bit when there are people ticking out at the very mention of your nature as if you have done something wrong. Of course the way it is done is very important, I for example still cosnider Beyond's take unlucky but for different reasons. But once you are told that by merely mentioning you include a group in a completely natural process (a state we simply haven't reached yet, as a society) you are "catering" to anybody, it hurts. Your experiences may vary of course.​​

    Making a group (any group, be it minority/majority) feel represented, is important on many different levels, from support, to engagement... I can't express that sentiment any more directly or succinctly...

    But what Fuller has done, is neither of those things...

    He has 'played the g.ay card' as an advertising campaign (pretty much the only one, because this is one of the only things which has been repeatedly referenced by Fuller in his little 'announcements') As a cishetscum(I know that's how a particular demographic views me) viewer, I have no problem with g.ay characters and actors being involved with the project, and frankly, I think the inclusion of is way over-due... What I take exception to, is Fuller riding on that to try and leverage interest for the series, and IMHO, it is wrong...

    They're using it i) to draw attention, and ii) as a way of virtue signalling... It's slack, sloppy and lazy... If the character's sexuality really wasn't a Big Deal (which it isn't) Fuller wouldn't mention it Every Time he made an announcement... He's the one treating it like a Big Deal, rather than something which people should just treat as an irrelevance... He's the one doing that, by drawing attention to it... IDIC would dictate nothing more than presentation of the character with no more focussing on the fact, or making announcement of it than any other character... (such as Salvatore in Madmen...) It should naturally come out through the course of engaging the story, or not at all -- certainly not be used as a PR grabber (and anything announced pre-release is done as a PR grabber) to try and generate interest...

    This
    Is
    SpartaStar Trek!

    They could release Star Trek:Janitors, and the community would likely still watch it! They don't need to use sexualities as a way of getting interest, the interest is (or at least, was) already there in the franchise itself...

    My issue (in terms of this, and other conversations) is having to continually reiterate, repeat and re-brand my thoughts, so they can be understood by someone who is incapable of understanding my perspective, and who seems to make deliberate efforts to continually misinterpret what I say, either to be deliberately contrary, or simply dismissive of my input, for the only reason that They don't 'get it'... Frankly, it's exhausting, and, unlike my namesake character, I have not been schooled by a Vulcan Master, and like any other human being, I simply aim to be engaged with with a modicum of respect, and to have my views reasonably considered by my peers, rather than being continually judged and challenged for making statements which someone else fails to grasp the tone of... Like any other human being, my patience has limits, and yesterday, that limit was reached...
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,958 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    The reaction in this thread is the very reason why I think it's right to advertise that a character in a new show is homsexual.

    There are still people that think that this is some cheap method to get interest.
    That means people still treat it as something special and noteworthy and something they think is pandering to a certain group.

    If they keep doing it regularly and for many future shows, maybe at some point it will be as ordinary as the information that, say, a character in a new sitcom is married with children, or that a character is a 20 something single looking for the love of his life, or that a character is the oldest child of 3 siblings with two chaotic but loving parents.
    Then the LBGT (or whatever the correct sequence of letters is) community will have succeeded, except no one will notice, because there is no LBGT community - just people, as odd or ordinary as everyone else.

    The thing that I really wonder about is his exobiolgogical specialty. How will this play into the show?
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • daveynydaveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    Thank you, Mustrumridcully...



    Can we PLEASE keep the personal chit to a minimum...

    It would be extremely irritating to have to restart this particular topic in a new thread.
    Especially since I've been keeping this one up to date for quite a while now both for easy access to DISCOVERY'S production history and as a kinda-sorta tribute to the OP, who was an interesting character in his own way and was around here for quite awhile.


    Also, marcus, you might want to stop taking everything people post as a direct personal insult, it's just a Star Trek Forum, not a continual attack on your EGO.
    Take a breath dude.


    As far as the particular topic at hand goes, I'm almost sorry I brought it up...
    But remember, the guy who created this Trek offshoot is G A Y himself, and made a big deal out of the fact that he was being all-inclusive with this show, so why would anybody expect anything less with the descriptions of the characters.


    BTW, We're Star Trek Fans, we of all people should be the most tolerant of an "all-inclusive" crew.

    Let's spend our time discussing what the new character's might bring to the continuing history of the Trek Universe, not debating the merits of their sexuality.



    Besides, Lt. Stamets might just end up being a really ... 'fungi' ... while doing his job onboard the ship.


    B)

    (let it be known, I was the first around here to go there)
    STO Member since February 2009.
    I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
    Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
    upside-down-banana-smiley-emoticon.gif
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 10,834 Arc User
    (...) is Fuller riding on that to try and leverage interest for the series, and IMHO, it is wrong...

    (...)

    My issue (in terms of this, and other conversations) is having to continually reiterate, repeat and re-brand my thoughts, so they can be understood by someone who is incapable of understanding my perspective, and who seems to make deliberate efforts to continually misinterpret what I say, either to be deliberately contrary, or simply dismissive of my input, for the only reason that They don't 'get it'... Frankly, it's exhausting, and, unlike my namesake character, I have not been schooled by a Vulcan Master, and like any other human being, I simply aim to be engaged with with a modicum of respect, and to have my views reasonably considered by my peers, rather than being continually judged and challenged for making statements which someone else fails to grasp the tone of... Like any other human being, my patience has limits, and yesterday, that limit was reached...

    I just cropped out the important parts here. Fuller advertising the show as g.ay inclusive is "wrong" since you consider it being exploitative - why? What if I tell you what he does generates a lot of recognition amongst people that regularily, even in 2016, face exclusion, whose partaking in society is not yet something "normal". And then those people get told to "play the g.ay card" when they just want to tell the world that they are there and would love to see themselves included. I would agree with you from a fictional storywriting POV, a character's sexuality rarely matters. But this is about real people who are tired that the majority of "representation" they received in popular culture is mockery and misrepresentation.

    As for the last part, I read what you wrote but I have to tell you, in a completely non hostile and purely informative way, this is not about you. You aren't the victim of anything here. Just follow your own advice and don't pay too much attention to it and simply enjoy the show and let those who appreciate the gesture do so and then enjoy the show together. After all, what damage do his announcements do? Rile up people who feel victimized when homosexuality is even mentioned? Generate interest amongs homosexuals that wouldn't have watched the show otherwise?

    Simply calm down, don't hate. You can always criticize if you can base that criticism on something. For example, the decision to make Sulu a homosexual in the KT movies to pay a tribute to his homosexual actor against this actor's will was unlucky. The ultimate execution was no big deal and felt natural, but the route he/they chose wasn't elegant at all. In this case, even if he's "exploting" anything, what damage does it do?​​
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    angrytarg wrote: »
    (...) is Fuller riding on that to try and leverage interest for the series, and IMHO, it is wrong...

    (...)

    My issue (in terms of this, and other conversations) is having to continually reiterate, repeat and re-brand my thoughts, so they can be understood by someone who is incapable of understanding my perspective, and who seems to make deliberate efforts to continually misinterpret what I say, either to be deliberately contrary, or simply dismissive of my input, for the only reason that They don't 'get it'... Frankly, it's exhausting, and, unlike my namesake character, I have not been schooled by a Vulcan Master, and like any other human being, I simply aim to be engaged with with a modicum of respect, and to have my views reasonably considered by my peers, rather than being continually judged and challenged for making statements which someone else fails to grasp the tone of... Like any other human being, my patience has limits, and yesterday, that limit was reached...

    I just cropped out the important parts here. Fuller advertising the show as g.ay inclusive is "wrong" since you consider it being exploitative - why? ​​
    This, is what I mean... I don't have to give a 'why' -- it's my opinion -- I shouldn't have to justify why I hold it, least of all, to someone (not you) who's capacity to grasp the opinions of others is tenuous at best... I'm sick of every comment I make being turned into an argument, or an excuse for one... If Sander's passing has shown me anything, it's that I have better things to do with my time than spend it arguing with people who neither share, nor are capable of appreciating my opinion; that even if it is differing from theirs, is simply part of a conversation on a topic, and extending me the courtesy of allowing me freedom of opinion without demanding explanations and clarifications, and I now resent wasting the time it takes to explain 'why' I think something to someone incapable of grasping a differing viewpoint without the entitlement or need to feel that they need to present a rebuttal, only for that to then be dissected, misinterpreted, and argued against... These are not discussions were any quantum of truth is sought, merely attempts to prove/disprove points in a 'my opinion is right because I say so' echo-chamber, and I said, my patience has limits...

    Actually, I don't consider what Fuller as doing as exploitative, I just see it as drawing attention to something which does not need attention drawn to it...

    I've got no beef with g.ay people, a point I shouldn't even have to preface a comment with -- I shouldn't have to prove that I'm not a bigot, just to voice my opinion) but the only way to win over (in any issue) the opinions of those who do, the only way to bring about change, is to not demand or draw attention to it, but to just Get On With Life... People (of any demographic) will only be treated equally by others, when they are ready to be treated equally... All the time there are any kind of civil rights movements after equality of law has been achieved, then they become counter productive: Example:
    g.ays/blacks/women, all have the legally recognized right to vote, to get married, to own property and hold office, etc... IMHO, this on-going 'we need recognition' behaviour, is counter productive -- it makes haters hate more, and makes allies lose sympathy... Groups already are recognized and given equal treatment under the law, the only time there isn't equality, is when bigots refuse to treat others with the respect due to them as a human being, so what such groups are now doing, is essentially insisting on making people like them, and enforcing a viewpoint on someone, taking away someone's right to hold their own opinion, is a dangerous, and inherently counter-productive thing...
    angrytarg wrote: »
    As for the last part, I read what you wrote but I have to tell you, in a completely non hostile and purely informative way, this is not about you. You aren't the victim of anything here.
    Oh but I am, when my almost every comment is challenged, and I'm treated like I'm some kind of moral defective, by someone who by their own admission, is neuro-atypical... As kindly as possible, but if someone is literally incapable of thinking in the same way as me, and is incapable of viewing my opinion as anything other than something which needs to be challenged, then yes, that is about me, and I am being victimized, for nothing more than expressing an opinion, which an aspie doesn't/can't grasp, which no explanation I give will ever be sufficient or accepted, as a true expression of my intent... When, for example, a girl turns down a guy's proposition, she's under no obligation to explain to him why that is... She doesn't have to give a blow-by-blow accounting of why she feels the way she feels about him, she just says "Thanks, but I'm not interested..." and that's the end of it...
    angrytarg wrote: »
    After all, what damage do his announcements do? Rile up people who feel victimized when homosexuality is even mentioned? Generate interest amongs homosexuals that wouldn't have watched the show otherwise?
    It perpetuates the myth that a person's sexuality is worthy of discussion, and being used as a means for forming judgement about them... As I said above, the only way for people to be treated equally, is to drop the labels, and let people treat them equally...

    And so for someone like Fuller to refer to an upcoming character's sexuality, to use it as an attention grab, as above, it's not the way to (no pun intended) let it come out, nor is it facilitating a broader acceptance in/by/from society... None of the sexuaIties of the other characters or actors has been referenced, so why reference this one? Because it's a minority, and thus can be used for PR... That 'use of things for PR) as I said, I don't consider exploitative, but I do see it as a (albeit unintentional) way of perpetuating the current social dichotomies, rather than a way of easing them...

    Now that's all just my opinion... I'm happy to discuss my opinions, but not to justify them, and there's a difference between the two types of discussion...

    Thanks for being cool, it's appreciated B)
  • mhall85mhall85 Member Posts: 2,852 Arc User1
    daveyny wrote: »
    More from Bryan Fuller as to why he had to step down as Line Producer and is not going to be involved at all beyond the initial storyline...

    http://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/791483-bryan-fuller-opens-up-about-star-trek-discovery-exit

    I didn't realize that he was completely off the series at this point.
    That's a bit disappointing.

    B)

    So, I read this, and my general reaction to this is "nothing new to see here, carry on." It probably shows that CBS was shooting too high when they tapped Fuller to helm the show. Dude had TWO other shows already on his plate, one (American Gods) he was already HEAVILY involved in (and excited by, from what it looks like). I also don't think CBS' demands were unreasonable, given the timetable given (especially after the extension and pushback to May 2017). CBS wants people giving their full attention to the show. Fuller ain't that.

    Still, after clarifying how clean the break was, and that he's not involved AT ALL... something doesn't feel quite right. It may just be that CBS has egg on their face, and the show could be fine.

    It's also interesting that Fuller hasn't burned the bridge with CBS, and is open to returning. Not sure that will happen, at this point, though...
    d87926bd02aaa4eb12e2bb0fbc1f7061.jpg
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 10,834 Arc User
    (...)
    Actually, I don't consider what Fuller as doing as exploitative, I just see it as drawing attention to something which does not need attention drawn to it... (...)

    And this is where you are factually wrong. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but on a societal level we haven't reached that point yet. We are in dire need of drawing attention to the issues that prevail through times and times again, which includes displaying glimpses of a utopia where it actually doesn't matter any more. But that's not our reality.
    (...)I've got no beef with g.ay people, a point I shouldn't even have to preface a comment with -- I shouldn't have to prove that I'm not a bigot, just to voice my opinion) but the only way to win over (in any issue) the opinions of those who do, the only way to bring about change, is to not demand or draw attention to it, but to just Get On With Life... People (of any demographic) will only be treated equally by others, when they are ready to be treated equally... All the time there are any kind of civil rights movements after equality of law has been achieved, then they become counter productive: (...)

    To be fair, you are using language strongly associated with populist and bigot movements. And it does come off as slightly arrogant to claim "they" should just get on with it when "they" face everyday racism, sexism and discrimination. In 2016 some states in the US dictate trans people which bathroom to use for crying out loud. Just wait it out until "they" are ready to be treated equal? You are at least retreating yourself into an ivory tower and give advice based on a ideal world which isn't ours. And that tactic is used by groups that deny equal treatment, plain and simple. Thus, understand that you face criticism for stating your opinion this way.
    (...) It perpetuates the myth that a person's sexuality is worthy of discussion, and being used as a means for forming judgement about them... As I said above, the only way for people to be treated equally, is to drop the labels, and let people treat them equally... (...)

    To achieve euality, groups have to be recognized first. We're not there yet, not in the US and espeically not worldwide. But showing the world that everyone can be part of popular cultural media and be represented adequately is a small but important step to undertake.
    (...)
    Thanks for being cool, it's appreciated B)

    I have no reason to get riled up and hurt the thread in the process. But I felt I had to reply to this one time again. You can have your opinion but you should check the basis of your argument. Minorities strifing for equal treatment is in no way special treatment. But since we haven't reached the point of recognition and acceptance yet it'll be necessary to draw attention. Of course it provokes spite in reactionaries, but that's not a part of society we want to recognize every one of us. Those are the people crying "infringement of personal liberties" because they are asked to stop using racial or sexual slur, they will never learn because they don't want to. But the rest of society might one day. And it feels good to be respected. Not exploited, not ridiculed but just included. You ask why it is necessary to point out sexuality in that case? Because, in real life, that's still a novelty. It feels good seeing you are represented in any way shape or form and not left out. Simple as that.​​
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    The reaction in this thread is the very reason why I think it's right to advertise that a character in a new show is homsexual.

    There are still people that think that this is some cheap method to get interest.
    That means people still treat it as something special and noteworthy and something they think is pandering to a certain group.

    If they keep doing it regularly and for many future shows, maybe at some point it will be as ordinary as the information that, say, a character in a new sitcom is married with children, or that a character is a 20 something single looking for the love of his life, or that a character is the oldest child of 3 siblings with two chaotic but loving parents.
    Then the LBGT (or whatever the correct sequence of letters is) community will have succeeded, except no one will notice, because there is no LBGT community - just people, as odd or ordinary as everyone else.

    The thing that I really wonder about is his exobiolgogical specialty. How will this play into the show?
    I don't think that... At All!! Why are people incapable of reading anything I write, without taking the exact opposite interpretation of what I mean, and go to great lengths to explain?? Is there an issue with my use of English, or the way I express myself?? Am I not sufficiently clear in the expression of my opinions??

    And yes, there are people who think this is a cheap method for getting interest: Brian Fuller being one of them, because he is the one employing the tactic... And all the time the tactic works, then it is...

    Perhaps the expertise on fungi will have something to do with Elachi, or a food-based reason... Perhaps his quarters will be full with exotic samples... No point in speculating until (if) TRIBBLE is actually released, and folks can see for themself...
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    angrytarg wrote: »
    And this is where you are factually wrong. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but on a societal level we haven't reached that point yet. We are in dire need of drawing attention to the issues that prevail through times and times again, which includes displaying glimpses of a utopia where it actually doesn't matter any more. But that's not our reality.​​
    So g.ay people can't vote? Can't own their own homes? Can't get married? Can't have jobs?

    I don't deny that there's still a long way to go in stamping out prejudice in some quarters, but the situation now, is way better than the situation of say, fifty years ago...

    angrytarg wrote: »
    To be fair, you are using language strongly associated with populist and bigot movements. And it does come off as slightly arrogant to claim "they" should just get on with it when "they" face everyday racism, sexism and discrimination. In 2016 some states in the US dictate trans people which bathroom to use for crying out loud. Just wait it out until "they" are ready to be treated equal? You are at least retreating yourself into an ivory tower and give advice based on a ideal world which isn't ours. And that tactic is used by groups that deny equal treatment, plain and simple. Thus, understand that you face criticism for stating your opinion this way.​​
    And that, is exactly what I was talking about! That I am yet again being forced to justify the expression if my opinion! The language I am using, is English... "They", refers to not just one, but many groups, plural... It refers to groups which I am not a member of, so I can't say "we", because I can't identify thus to be entitled to use the "we" descriptor or inclusion... What word would you suggest that I use instead?

    As I said, I'm not a bigot, and resent being accused of using language used by bigots, when I am using plain English... I'm sorry that my grasp of German is insufficient for us to hold the conversation in German, but I can only use the language and vocabulary at my disposal...
    angrytarg wrote: »
    To achieve euality, groups have to be recognized first. We're not there yet, not in the US and espeically not worldwide. But showing the world that everyone can be part of popular cultural media and be represented adequately is a small but important step to undertake.​​
    And as above, in what way are you not being recognized? Are you not allowed to vote, or get married? I'm sorry, but this isn't the 19th century anymore, those social values are no longer enforced, so yes, there is recognition, what remains (and what remains to be dealt with) is prejudice, and that is going to take a massive overhauling of the mainstream media to accomplish...

    As for 'represented adequately', one g.ay character out of ten or twelve, according to statistics, is even representation (if those statistics are accurate, of course)
    angrytarg wrote: »
    I have no reason to get riled up and hurt the thread in the process. But I felt I had to reply to this one time again. You can have your opinion but you should check the basis of your argument. Minorities strifing for equal treatment is in no way special treatment. But since we haven't reached the point of recognition and acceptance yet it'll be necessary to draw attention. Of course it provokes spite in reactionaries, but that's not a part of society we want to recognize every one of us. Those are the people crying "infringement of personal liberties" because they are asked to stop using racial or sexual slur, they will never learn because they don't want to. But the rest of society might one day. And it feels good to be respected. Not exploited, not ridiculed but just included. You ask why it is necessary to point out sexuality in that case? Because, in real life, that's still a novelty. It feels good seeing you are represented in any way shape or form and not left out. Simple as that.​​
    And I totally get what you're saying, and again, I appreciate the reasoned response B) But again, there is equal treatment (at law) there is just not equal treatment from a bunch of mouth-breathing knuckle draggers (and sadly in some parts of Murica, they still control silly bathroom laws due to their intolerances) those people, short of a frontal lobotomy, will never have their attitudes changed, so the endeavour to do so, is just pissing in the wind, and gets boring... It's a bit tedious having a lesson rammed down one's throat, which one learned in childhood...
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    angrytarg wrote: »
    To achieve euality, groups have to be recognized first. We're not there yet, not in the US and espeically not worldwide. But showing the world that everyone can be part of popular cultural media and be represented adequately is a small but important step to undertake.​​
    And as above, in what way are you not being recognized? Are you not allowed to vote, or get married? I'm sorry, but this isn't the 19th century anymore, those social values are no longer enforced, so yes, there is recognition, what remains (and what remains to be dealt with) is prejudice, and that is going to take a massive overhauling of the mainstream media to accomplish...

    Targ's German so no. Even civilised countries can still have legal discrimination against g.ay people. They're not a protected class in America for instance. Equal marrage still isn't recognised across the entirety of the UK or in Germany. Australia doesn't have it at all.

    G.ay people are often lumped in with women or ethnic minorities but those two groups are protected classes in most civilised countries and (outside of the US anyway) a lot of sociatal iszues have gone away with protection and equality laws.
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • daveynydaveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    Rather than forcing people to change their attitudes, methinks it would be wonderful and a step in the right direction if we could just get them to be a tad less vocal.

    There are many things in the world I dislike, but my moral compass keeps me from going out of my way to inform others, in a not so nice fashion, of those dislikes...

    Perhaps rather than forcing everybody to be rigidly PC, we take the first step of just getting folks to be pleasant to each other on a daily basis.

    Get everybody to acknowledge the fact that each and everyone of us can easily be an a-s-s-hole, but today we CHOOSE not to.

    B)


    STO Member since February 2009.
    I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
    Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
    upside-down-banana-smiley-emoticon.gif
This discussion has been closed.