It's too early to make an assessment like this. Some people might have joined STO because of it, but the number will be really small.
It's more likely Discovery might have more of an impact on STO when people have seen entire seasons and STO actually has some of the ships later down the road.
God forbid... Spinning hull sections, disco light spore drive wind up, coffins glued to the outside of klingon ships, Cpt. Nemo Diving suits... shudder
Forgive some of the missing letters I will use @ to repl@ce it @s my keybo@rd is hurting. I re@lly w@s looking forw@rd to Discovery until the outright lies CBS tossed out. Like The new Klingons CBS : "The @liens in the le@ked shots @re not Klingons but @nother species @nd the person h@s been fired." Few weeks l@ter CBS : These @re Klingons. Then the look of the Klingon ships wow. So I just in c@se I w@s wrong s@t down @nd w@tched three episodes @nd s@dly it w@s worse then I expected. But there is bright note everything th@t m@de @ll of the e@rlier Treks so good is @live@nd well on... The Orville. Yes the first two episodes were @ckw@rd BUT from Episode 3 on it is more Trek the TRIBBLE is. Ignore the jokes (they @re fewer now) p@y @ttention to the story nd you will go wow. TRIBBLE I'll w@it to borrow my d@ughters Blur@ys if it ever gets put on them.
Old Star Trek series haven't aged well. Not well at all - looking back, it's almost a comedy show by today's standards.
What I can say about TRIBBLE is that it's at least up to date in just about everything it does... but regardless I don't like it because of its over the top SJW push. I despise SJW's, political correctness or any other forms of false authority trying to be thought-police, and that's what TRIBBLE is, a thought-police show of the worst kind.
Old Star Trek series haven't aged well. Not well at all - looking back, it's almost a comedy show by today's standards.
What I can say about TRIBBLE is that it's at least up to date in just about everything it does... but regardless I don't like it because of its over the top SJW push. I despise SJW's, political correctness or any other forms of false authority trying to be thought-police, and that's what TRIBBLE is, a thought-police show of the worst kind.
Seems like what you're calling "SJW's, political correctness or any other forms of false authority" is what Trek has historically called "diplomacy". Haven't really run into any other treksters who took issue with the diplomatic aspects of trek, but hey, there are all types of folks out there.
Can't help but wonder how folks, who think this way, felt about Kirk's feelings toward Klingons in Star Trek 6: Undiscovered Country. Can't help but wonder if they felt disgusted with Kirk's tolerance of Klingons, that he was thought-policed into being diplomatic.. even friendly toward them. What a wholly bizarre perspective.
Old Star Trek series haven't aged well. Not well at all - looking back, it's almost a comedy show by today's standards.
What I can say about TRIBBLE is that it's at least up to date in just about everything it does... but regardless I don't like it because of its over the top SJW push. I despise SJW's, political correctness or any other forms of false authority trying to be thought-police, and that's what TRIBBLE is, a thought-police show of the worst kind.
Seems like what you're calling "SJW's, political correctness or any other forms of false authority" is what Trek has historically called "diplomacy". Haven't really run into any other treksters who took issue with the diplomatic aspects of trek, but hey, there are all types of folks out there.
Can't help but wonder how folks, who think this way, felt about Kirk's feelings toward Klingons in Star Trek 6: Undiscovered Country. Can't help but wonder if they felt disgusted with Kirk's tolerance of Klingons, that he was thought-policed into being diplomatic.. even friendly toward them. What a wholly bizarre perspective.
Trek has always been leftist, but not as much as in TRIBBLE, where it borders on extremism. There's a difference between the two, and the former doesn't bother me as much.
I also don't consider myself a "trekkie" - I just like the game.
I really don't get the SJW complaint when it comes to TRIBBLE. I mean I've never gotten the SJW complaint, but TRIBBLE is probably the least SJW of all the Treks.
No heavy handed moralising, no moral anvils, no Ferengi meant as parodies of 80's American conservatives, no speeches about how future Earth is so much more superior than us and a liberal paradise.
It doesn't even have that diverse a crew in comparison. Seriously on Discovery have we yet had a name for a crewmember who wasn't white? The only character who isn't white with a name is Michael Burnham.
And the fact she's the lead can't be the issue here, since we've had a black captain and a woman captain as a lead. She isn't even the captain of the ship (yet).
No good preaching to wearers of rose-tinted spectacles.
Well I certainly didn't watch the Star Treks I have in order nor back in the days that they were released. I started with Voyager in 2015, moved on to DS9 in 2016 followed by TNG, then finally Enterprise. I absolutely adored TNG and liked DS9 in a close second despite my hate of the Bajoran and religion aspects. I tried Discovery and really didn't enjoy it at all, but I am certainly not blinded by nostalgia nor have rose tinted glasses.
I really don't get the SJW complaint when it comes to TRIBBLE. I mean I've never gotten the SJW complaint, but TRIBBLE is probably the least SJW of all the Treks.
No heavy handed moralising, no moral anvils, no Ferengi meant as parodies of 80's American conservatives, no speeches about how future Earth is so much more superior than us and a liberal paradise.
It doesn't even have that diverse a crew in comparison. Seriously on Discovery have we yet had a name for a crewmember who wasn't white? The only character who isn't white with a name is Michael Burnham.
And the fact she's the lead can't be the issue here, since we've had a black captain and a woman captain as a lead. She isn't even the captain of the ship (yet).
You have a good point there, but I think the TRIBBLE writers are aware of all that. Like I said, more up to date, but their agenda is still obvious at getting at the "Trumpites" (and before I am labelled as such, I'd like to point out that I live far away from the USA and I have rather eccentric views of life). I knew it the moment I saw the first episode. Still, if people enjoy it, then by all means, but count me out.
I have been watching Star Trek since it aired in 1965 I just can't take another pre-tos I feel this should have been at least been set post voyager timeline wise not to mention that terrible looking ship and I could go on and on, but as far as it adding to STO I don't think it will very much . Sorry abut the rant and being off topic
It kinda bothers me that people only look for agendas, instead of actually reacting to what is happening on the show. It's like missing the forest for all the trees.
So, there is a homosexual couple, because of a "liberal agenda" or whatever. But what are these people in the story? They are a couple, yes, but they are also a medical professional and a scientist. They have relations with their co-workers. Are those interesting? In the last episode, Stamets tells Burnham something about how he and his husband met, and teaches her about the "illogic" of love, helping her understanding more about her own (human) feelings, things she didn't learn from her Vulcan upbringing. None of the story arc so far makes it about them being homosexual .
So there is a "woman of color" as main protagonist because of an liberal agenda. But what kind of woman is she? Did they ever make a point of her being a women, or her being of color? Nope. Her trademark is that she grew up among Vulcans and was brought up on Vulcan philosophy, and has a hard time relating emotionally to others. She's competent, but she makes a bad decision that ruins her career, and ends her in prison. None of that has to do with "woman" or "of color".
So the Klingons are "Trumpites", according to some. Their "Remain Klingon" slogan would of course work for any nationalist or racist movement. But what are they in the story?
The Klingons are a divided races. 24 houses were basically squabbling among each other and ignoring that there is a new giant awakening next to them, the Federation. A group of Klingons thinks these are a threat to the Klingons, they risk losing territory and independence if they ignore the Federation for longer. So his "Remain Klingon" slogan is a rallying crew to unite the Klingons so they can resist the threat of obsolesce. Is this such an unlikely storyline? Is this a storyline that doesn't fit the Klingons as we know them from Star Trek?
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
It kinda bothers me that people only look for agendas, instead of actually reacting to what is happening on the show. It's like missing the forest for all the trees.
So, there is a homosexual couple, because of a "liberal agenda" or whatever. But what are these people in the story? They are a couple, yes, but they are also a medical professional and a scientist. They have relations with their co-workers. Are those interesting? In the last episode, Stamets tells Burnham something about how he and his husband met, and teaches her about the "illogic" of love, helping her understanding more about her own (human) feelings, things she didn't learn from her Vulcan upbringing. None of the story arc so far makes it about them being homosexual .
So there is a "woman of color" as main protagonist because of an liberal agenda. But what kind of woman is she? Did they ever make a point of her being a women, or her being of color? Nope. Her trademark is that she grew up among Vulcans and was brought up on Vulcan philosophy, and has a hard time relating emotionally to others. She's competent, but she makes a bad decision that ruins her career, and ends her in prison. None of that has to do with "woman" or "of color".
So the Klingons are "Trumpites", according to some. Their "Remain Klingon" slogan would of course work for any nationalist or racist movement. But what are they in the story?
The Klingons are a divided races. 24 houses were basically squabbling among each other and ignoring that there is a new giant awakening next to them, the Federation. A group of Klingons thinks these are a threat to the Klingons, they risk losing territory and independence if they ignore the Federation for longer. So his "Remain Klingon" slogan is a rallying crew to unite the Klingons so they can resist the threat of obsolesce. Is this such an unlikely storyline? Is this a storyline that doesn't fit the Klingons as we know them from Star Trek?
To be honest Until you brought it up the fact there are same sex couple's in TRIBBLE had not even occurred to me as being out of the ordinary the same with a woman of colour being the main protagonist, I guess maybe its a cultural thing the UK is very muli-cultural so I was raised with this sort of thing being normal yes we have our racists, homophobes and bigots but i guess its more of an issue in america never visited your country so just guessing.
I'm going to caution people about getting overly political in their discussions here. Also, there's not much game discussion going on here, so I'm going to move this to Ten Forward.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
*wave* lifetimer here, I came back in the excitement for Discovery.
Love the series, I'm actually really enjoying it (as is my fiance'), and I'm one of the older 2nd-gen chaps who was able to watch TNG's TV run as it aired.
Isn't Star Trek supposed to be anti-SJW due to it being the 22nd to 24th Century where humanity has evolved beyond such petty concerns? It doesn't matter about creed, race, or gender. All that matters is how a person acts.
I have been watching Star Trek since it aired in 1965 I just can't take another pre-tos I feel this should have been at least been set post voyager timeline wise not to mention that terrible looking ship and I could go on and on, but as far as it adding to STO I don't think it will very much . Sorry abut the rant and being off topic
Ummm... try 1966...
(see my sig below)
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
Wow. Another thread of whining fanbois again. How original and unexpected.
As to the question, yes probably.
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
Isn't Star Trek supposed to be anti-SJW due to it being the 22nd to 24th Century where humanity has evolved beyond such petty concerns? It doesn't matter about creed, race, or gender. All that matters is how a person acts.
hahaha, no. They did try to portray the Federation like that sometimes, but it never acted like that.
So the Klingons are "Trumpites", according to some. Their "Remain Klingon" slogan would of course work for any nationalist or racist movement.
Yes, it would work for any nationalist group. Which is why the showrunners had to point out the correlation themselves.
When the showrunners themselves say "there are major parallels between our perception of events surrounding President Trump and what is going on in the show", I can't blame viewers for actively looking for those corollaries. The viewers may be wrong as to which parts are the political commentary, but it's the showrunners that started all this.
Season two and it's "parallels between Trump and North Korea" should prove fascinating.
So the Klingons are "Trumpites", according to some. Their "Remain Klingon" slogan would of course work for any nationalist or racist movement.
Yes, it would work for any nationalist group. Which is why the showrunners had to point out the correlation themselves.
When the showrunners themselves say "there are major parallels between our perception of events surrounding President Trump and what is going on in the show", I can't blame viewers for actively looking for those corollaries. The viewers may be wrong as to which parts are the political commentary, but it's the showrunners that started all this.
Season two and it's "parallels between Trump and North Korea" should prove fascinating.
Got a link to that? You should know by now that sources are demanded.
I really don't get the SJW complaint when it comes to TRIBBLE. I mean I've never gotten the SJW complaint, but TRIBBLE is probably the least SJW of all the Treks.
No heavy handed moralising, no moral anvils, no Ferengi meant as parodies of 80's American conservatives, no speeches about how future Earth is so much more superior than us and a liberal paradise.
It doesn't even have that diverse a crew in comparison. Seriously on Discovery have we yet had a name for a crewmember who wasn't white? The only character who isn't white with a name is Michael Burnham.
And the fact she's the lead can't be the issue here, since we've had a black captain and a woman captain as a lead. She isn't even the captain of the ship (yet).
Well, let's see.
Both security chiefs, Ellen Landry and Ash Tyler (the former played by an Indian-Canadian, the latter played by an actor of mixed Pakistani and British descent).
The CMO, Hugh Culber, played by a Latino actor.
Speaking of Tyler, that fan theory about Voq and Ash Tyler being the same person? Not true. The guy playing Voq, Javid Iqbal, is new to TV but has a legit, if short, career as a theater actor.
It kinda bothers me that people only look for agendas, instead of actually reacting to what is happening on the show. It's like missing the forest for all the trees.
So, there is a homosexual couple, because of a "liberal agenda" or whatever. But what are these people in the story? They are a couple, yes, but they are also a medical professional and a scientist. They have relations with their co-workers. Are those interesting? In the last episode, Stamets tells Burnham something about how he and his husband met, and teaches her about the "illogic" of love, helping her understanding more about her own (human) feelings, things she didn't learn from her Vulcan upbringing. None of the story arc so far makes it about them being homosexual.
What I have a problem with there has more to do with Vulcans than with real-life human sexuality. I was actually hopeful from the way Sarek was portrayed in "Lethe" that the show was going to do Vulcans properly: he was deeply emotional inside his mind, though he maintained that granite exterior outside of it. Ergo feeling love isn't and shouldn't be thought to be something that's alien to them.
So frankly that bit from "Magic" ought to have been treated as having less to do with Vulcans in general and more to do with Sarek specifically (Spock, too, was estranged from him, into TNG even).
So there is a "woman of color" as main protagonist because of an liberal agenda. But what kind of woman is she? Did they ever make a point of her being a women, or her being of color? Nope. Her trademark is that she grew up among Vulcans and was brought up on Vulcan philosophy, and has a hard time relating emotionally to others. She's competent, but she makes a bad decision that ruins her career, and ends her in prison. None of that has to do with "woman" or "of color".
So the Klingons are "Trumpites", according to some. Their "Remain Klingon" slogan would of course work for any nationalist or racist movement. But what are they in the story?
The Klingons are a divided races. 24 houses were basically squabbling among each other and ignoring that there is a new giant awakening next to them, the Federation. A group of Klingons thinks these are a threat to the Klingons, they risk losing territory and independence if they ignore the Federation for longer. So his "Remain Klingon" slogan is a rallying crew to unite the Klingons so they can resist the threat of obsolesce. Is this such an unlikely storyline? Is this a storyline that doesn't fit the Klingons as we know them from Star Trek?
I think patrick is having trouble separating the marketing from the show itself. A lot of the press was about the diverse cast (which, it does roughly as well as DS9 and VOY), but there's a certain thing people talking up the series to the media would've had to deal with called not spoiling the story. There honestly wasn't a whole lot else they could talk about.
And in-series? It's barely brought up. The Stamets/Culber relationship in particular is treated very well: they're not some magically totally-in-tune true love thing, they're real people. E.g. they're obviously in love, but they still drive each other nuts half the time.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
No, it has not. There are no ads run during the episodes which point towards STO. And the currently limited amount of Discovery based gear ingame does not help either. CBS seems to view STO as another advertising platform at best or a neccessary evil at worst.
A six year old boy and his starship. Living the dream.
I really don't get the SJW complaint when it comes to TRIBBLE. I mean I've never gotten the SJW complaint, but TRIBBLE is probably the least SJW of all the Treks.
No heavy handed moralising, no moral anvils, no Ferengi meant as parodies of 80's American conservatives, no speeches about how future Earth is so much more superior than us and a liberal paradise.
It doesn't even have that diverse a crew in comparison. Seriously on Discovery have we yet had a name for a crewmember who wasn't white? The only character who isn't white with a name is Michael Burnham.
And the fact she's the lead can't be the issue here, since we've had a black captain and a woman captain as a lead. She isn't even the captain of the ship (yet).
Well, let's see.
Both security chiefs, Ellen Landry and Ash Tyler (the former played by an Indian-Canadian, the latter played by an actor of mixed Pakistani and British descent).
The CMO, Hugh Culber, played by a Latino actor.
Speaking of Tyler, that fan theory about Voq and Ash Tyler being the same person? Not true. The guy playing Voq, Javid Iqbal, is new to TV but has a legit, if short, career as a theater actor.
It kinda bothers me that people only look for agendas, instead of actually reacting to what is happening on the show. It's like missing the forest for all the trees.
So, there is a homosexual couple, because of a "liberal agenda" or whatever. But what are these people in the story? They are a couple, yes, but they are also a medical professional and a scientist. They have relations with their co-workers. Are those interesting? In the last episode, Stamets tells Burnham something about how he and his husband met, and teaches her about the "illogic" of love, helping her understanding more about her own (human) feelings, things she didn't learn from her Vulcan upbringing. None of the story arc so far makes it about them being homosexual.
What I have a problem with there has more to do with Vulcans than with real-life human sexuality. I was actually hopeful from the way Sarek was portrayed in "Lethe" that the show was going to do Vulcans properly: he was deeply emotional inside his mind, though he maintained that granite exterior outside of it. Ergo feeling love isn't and shouldn't be thought to be something that's alien to them.
So frankly that bit from "Magic" ought to have been treated as having less to do with Vulcans in general and more to do with Sarek specifically (Spock, too, was estranged from him, into TNG even).
So there is a "woman of color" as main protagonist because of an liberal agenda. But what kind of woman is she? Did they ever make a point of her being a women, or her being of color? Nope. Her trademark is that she grew up among Vulcans and was brought up on Vulcan philosophy, and has a hard time relating emotionally to others. She's competent, but she makes a bad decision that ruins her career, and ends her in prison. None of that has to do with "woman" or "of color".
So the Klingons are "Trumpites", according to some. Their "Remain Klingon" slogan would of course work for any nationalist or racist movement. But what are they in the story?
The Klingons are a divided races. 24 houses were basically squabbling among each other and ignoring that there is a new giant awakening next to them, the Federation. A group of Klingons thinks these are a threat to the Klingons, they risk losing territory and independence if they ignore the Federation for longer. So his "Remain Klingon" slogan is a rallying crew to unite the Klingons so they can resist the threat of obsolesce. Is this such an unlikely storyline? Is this a storyline that doesn't fit the Klingons as we know them from Star Trek?
I think patrick is having trouble separating the marketing from the show itself. A lot of the press was about the diverse cast (which, it does roughly as well as DS9 and VOY), but there's a certain thing people talking up the series to the media would've had to deal with called not spoiling the story. There honestly wasn't a whole lot else they could talk about.
And in-series? It's barely brought up. The Stamets/Culber relationship in particular is treated very well: they're not some magically totally-in-tune true love thing, they're real people. E.g. they're obviously in love, but they still drive each other nuts half the time.
using oblique fanservice elements (tribbles, Mudd, Sarek, familiar names) instead of inventing new characters, etc. etc.
The fanservice elements are a necessity for a Star Trek series set so close to TOS. Otherwise there is not point in claiming that Discovery takes place 10 years before TOS. Discovery could be set in the 25th Century by just changing the Klingons to some other name and removing those fanservice elements.
Comments
God forbid... Spinning hull sections, disco light spore drive wind up, coffins glued to the outside of klingon ships, Cpt. Nemo Diving suits... shudder
What I can say about TRIBBLE is that it's at least up to date in just about everything it does... but regardless I don't like it because of its over the top SJW push. I despise SJW's, political correctness or any other forms of false authority trying to be thought-police, and that's what TRIBBLE is, a thought-police show of the worst kind.
Seems like what you're calling "SJW's, political correctness or any other forms of false authority" is what Trek has historically called "diplomacy". Haven't really run into any other treksters who took issue with the diplomatic aspects of trek, but hey, there are all types of folks out there.
Can't help but wonder how folks, who think this way, felt about Kirk's feelings toward Klingons in Star Trek 6: Undiscovered Country. Can't help but wonder if they felt disgusted with Kirk's tolerance of Klingons, that he was thought-policed into being diplomatic.. even friendly toward them. What a wholly bizarre perspective.
Trek has always been leftist, but not as much as in TRIBBLE, where it borders on extremism. There's a difference between the two, and the former doesn't bother me as much.
I also don't consider myself a "trekkie" - I just like the game.
No heavy handed moralising, no moral anvils, no Ferengi meant as parodies of 80's American conservatives, no speeches about how future Earth is so much more superior than us and a liberal paradise.
It doesn't even have that diverse a crew in comparison. Seriously on Discovery have we yet had a name for a crewmember who wasn't white? The only character who isn't white with a name is Michael Burnham.
And the fact she's the lead can't be the issue here, since we've had a black captain and a woman captain as a lead. She isn't even the captain of the ship (yet).
Daizen - Lvl 60 Tactical - Eclipse
Selia - Lvl 60 Tactical - Eclipse
You have a good point there, but I think the TRIBBLE writers are aware of all that. Like I said, more up to date, but their agenda is still obvious at getting at the "Trumpites" (and before I am labelled as such, I'd like to point out that I live far away from the USA and I have rather eccentric views of life). I knew it the moment I saw the first episode. Still, if people enjoy it, then by all means, but count me out.
So, there is a homosexual couple, because of a "liberal agenda" or whatever. But what are these people in the story? They are a couple, yes, but they are also a medical professional and a scientist. They have relations with their co-workers. Are those interesting? In the last episode, Stamets tells Burnham something about how he and his husband met, and teaches her about the "illogic" of love, helping her understanding more about her own (human) feelings, things she didn't learn from her Vulcan upbringing. None of the story arc so far makes it about them being homosexual .
So there is a "woman of color" as main protagonist because of an liberal agenda. But what kind of woman is she? Did they ever make a point of her being a women, or her being of color? Nope. Her trademark is that she grew up among Vulcans and was brought up on Vulcan philosophy, and has a hard time relating emotionally to others. She's competent, but she makes a bad decision that ruins her career, and ends her in prison. None of that has to do with "woman" or "of color".
So the Klingons are "Trumpites", according to some. Their "Remain Klingon" slogan would of course work for any nationalist or racist movement. But what are they in the story?
The Klingons are a divided races. 24 houses were basically squabbling among each other and ignoring that there is a new giant awakening next to them, the Federation. A group of Klingons thinks these are a threat to the Klingons, they risk losing territory and independence if they ignore the Federation for longer. So his "Remain Klingon" slogan is a rallying crew to unite the Klingons so they can resist the threat of obsolesce. Is this such an unlikely storyline? Is this a storyline that doesn't fit the Klingons as we know them from Star Trek?
To be honest Until you brought it up the fact there are same sex couple's in TRIBBLE had not even occurred to me as being out of the ordinary the same with a woman of colour being the main protagonist, I guess maybe its a cultural thing the UK is very muli-cultural so I was raised with this sort of thing being normal yes we have our racists, homophobes and bigots but i guess its more of an issue in america never visited your country so just guessing.
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
Love the series, I'm actually really enjoying it (as is my fiance'), and I'm one of the older 2nd-gen chaps who was able to watch TNG's TV run as it aired.
Really hoping they add more DISCO to STO.
Agreed.
(see my sig below)
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
As to the question, yes probably.
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!
My character Tsin'xing
When the showrunners themselves say "there are major parallels between our perception of events surrounding President Trump and what is going on in the show", I can't blame viewers for actively looking for those corollaries. The viewers may be wrong as to which parts are the political commentary, but it's the showrunners that started all this.
Season two and it's "parallels between Trump and North Korea" should prove fascinating.
My character Tsin'xing
Speaking of Tyler, that fan theory about Voq and Ash Tyler being the same person? Not true. The guy playing Voq, Javid Iqbal, is new to TV but has a legit, if short, career as a theater actor.
What I have a problem with there has more to do with Vulcans than with real-life human sexuality. I was actually hopeful from the way Sarek was portrayed in "Lethe" that the show was going to do Vulcans properly: he was deeply emotional inside his mind, though he maintained that granite exterior outside of it. Ergo feeling love isn't and shouldn't be thought to be something that's alien to them.
So frankly that bit from "Magic" ought to have been treated as having less to do with Vulcans in general and more to do with Sarek specifically (Spock, too, was estranged from him, into TNG even).
I think patrick is having trouble separating the marketing from the show itself. A lot of the press was about the diverse cast (which, it does roughly as well as DS9 and VOY), but there's a certain thing people talking up the series to the media would've had to deal with called not spoiling the story. There honestly wasn't a whole lot else they could talk about.
And in-series? It's barely brought up. The Stamets/Culber relationship in particular is treated very well: they're not some magically totally-in-tune true love thing, they're real people. E.g. they're obviously in love, but they still drive each other nuts half the time.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
The fanservice elements are a necessity for a Star Trek series set so close to TOS. Otherwise there is not point in claiming that Discovery takes place 10 years before TOS. Discovery could be set in the 25th Century by just changing the Klingons to some other name and removing those fanservice elements.
My character Tsin'xing