Tell that to the current ideologues and their identitarian politics which has America in the grip of a cultural civil war
I suppose that some are overshooting things and have forgotten the whole point of humanism and feminism - that we treat people as people, realize that they are individuals with their own desires and capabilities, and judge them on their own merits, not based on stereotypes like color, faith, sex or some accident of birth.
It's for people who have, in their echo chamber creeping extremism, forgotten these lessons that I use the term "alt-left". Ra
I would recommend using all the keys on your keyboard, and call them "ctrl-left". Though this is probably a topic left for other forums and threads.
That Discovery advertisement makes a point to mention that Star Trek has arrived in the 21st century and will have a homosexual character or a female protagonist is not a sign that they are going overboard with anythnig and begin showing more political messages down our throats than usual for Star Trek. The first black captain at the helm of a Startrek series was arguably one of the best-written and complex "Captains" in Star Trek.
Remember that I said these sorts of people give what I termed real, sane and rational liberals headaches from facepalming so much? I count myself among that number. I never had an objection to any of the progressive elements in Star Trek, in fact I support them wholeheartedly. The last thing I would criticize about Discovery is the casting of diverse actors or the inclusion of a homosexual character. My sig should be a clue to that one.
My issue, and the reason I like to term some people as "alt-left", is because they are extremists and radical fanatics who have gone way off course and give liberalism and progressive philosophy a bad name because of their crazed rantings.
One example is so-called "feminists" who give real feminism a bad name because they're actually not feminists at all but instead a puritanical, misandrist anti-sex hate group that is completely at odds with true feminist goals of equality and empowerment of women and girls to have freedom of choice in all aspects including sexuality. Real feminism isn't proscriptive, it doesn't say you can't be traditionally feminine or modest and chaste or butch or androgynous or sexually promiscuous or monogamous or a stay at home mom or a driven career woman or a prostitute or a nun or ANYthing --real feminism says female persons are human beings who deserve full and equal rights and that means the right for each to choose her own path as she sees fit, without being pressured or judged. So long as she's happy and she's not harming others, her choices are her own business. THAT is feminism. Not man-hating, not anti-sex puritanism, not dictating what are and are not acceptable female roles. Feminism is about achieving freedom and equal rights for female persons, period.
I could give a long list of other examples of "alt-left" fanatics and where they distort good causes and goals into something rabid and twisted, but this isn't the place for a long sociopolitical rant. I just wanted to set the record straight, as you seemed to think I am an anti-diversity conservative and that is not at all the case. I am liberal and progressive and proud to be, I just don't like the extremist fringe who claims left-wing identity while warping our values and giving us all a bad name.
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
> Hard to say, with Braga. > > Yes, it's true he's responsible (at least in part) for some of Trek's more memorable episodes (and, not memorable like "Threshold," LOL). However, he's also responsible for being the showrunner of the last two Trek series, and was left "holding the bag" with Rick Berman as the franchise slammed to a halt. > > Braga still holds his "No, seriously, please like me" panel at STLV... and, he strikes me as someone that hasn't accepted and moved on from past mistakes. His most recent version was... sad, really. I think he's a genuine fan of the franchise, and he cares about his work. I don't think, however, he's capable of executing better television as a result of learning from his mistakes (taking chances, truly caring about in-show continuity, etc)... and that's based on his body of work post-Enterprise.
The viewer analyses I've seen of Braga generally say he does a few things very well, such as head-game episodes (I haven't honestly taken the time to independently verify this). IOW he has his area of expertise, but is mediocre at best outside of it, and making him the showrunner ran into the Peter Principle.
"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"
Allowing? Sorry, but this comment has its basis in the utter confusion over the control of the IP. From everything I've read about the Paramount/CBS split, it's safe to say that CBS calls the shots, end of story. I think the most similar comparison to make is FOX vs. Marvel over the X-Men franchise... FOX is the ones that can make the movies (and TV), but they can't publish their own comic books, merch, and the like. Paramount owns the film rights, but CBS owns the IP.
It's lazy writing, at best. It's also a one-sided story.
Well, when you chop up the paragraph to take it out of context, then yes.
"J.J. just threw up his hands," the individual told TheWrap. "The message was, 'Why set up all this when we'll just be competing against ourselves?' The studio wanted to please Bad Robot, but it was allowing CBS to say yay or nay when it came to what was happening with the 'Star Trek' products."
See, this is an interview. When they conduct an interview with someone who wants to remain anonymous, the responsible outlets then reach out to the parties being talked about for comment. Which TheWrap did. Paramount DECLINED to comment and Bad Robot did not respond at all, so the interview stands uncontested. CBS did respond, but did not comment on the validity of the report.
Additionally, as the report continues, they actually name the individuals who have insight into the situation beyond what the anonymous source says. So far, TheWrap has conducted themselves professionally.
Fans have used this story to paint Abrams in a bad light, as the Evil Franchise Killer... "SEE?! THAT STAR WARS GUY HATES OUR STUFF!!" It's not that simple, and it's not that childish. Had the IP not been split over two companies, things would have been very different... Abrams could've easily gotten his way, had Trek been owned 100% by either CBS or Paramount.
This was an example of Hollywood business, sensationalized into something more than it was.
Seems to me you have an axe grind. Just like those "haters". Everything about the report seems professional. You'll have to provide something more than "those darn haters" and a sentence out of context.
[Yeha, that's what I was getting at. I'd be willing to wager that the article is less than half truth. I large part because the people who wrote it had fragmentary information.
Again, they had several interviews and reached out to Paramount, Bad Robot and CBS regarding the one anonymous source. If Paramount and Bad Robot don't want to tell "their side of the story", then there is nothing to report on. At this point, whatever you feel is "the other side" is speculation.
(...)real feminism says female persons are human beings who deserve full and equal rights and that means the right for each to choose her own path as she sees fit, without being pressured or judged. So long as she's happy and she's not harming others, her choices are her own business. THAT is feminism. Not man-hating, not anti-sex puritanism, not dictating what are and are not acceptable female roles. Feminism is about achieving freedom and equal rights for female persons, period.
(...)
Actually, feminism - despite the name which is rooted in the circumstances of it's time - doesn't limit itself actually to the female sex. Feminism is about the abolishing of sexism, regardless of a person's sex or gender. Otherwise though you are correct.
^ 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
(...)real feminism says female persons are human beings who deserve full and equal rights and that means the right for each to choose her own path as she sees fit, without being pressured or judged. So long as she's happy and she's not harming others, her choices are her own business. THAT is feminism. Not man-hating, not anti-sex puritanism, not dictating what are and are not acceptable female roles. Feminism is about achieving freedom and equal rights for female persons, period.
(...)
Actually, feminism - despite the name which is rooted in the circumstances of it's time - doesn't limit itself actually to the female sex. Feminism is about the abolishing of sexism, regardless of a person's sex or gender. Otherwise though you are correct.
YMMV on that. Like with any word, the specific meaning is down to the words root, in this case femmi- so it's the drive for (at first) female emancipation, (then) female rights, (then) female equality and so on.
It's a specific subset of egalitarianism dealing with women. The reason it's often used as a synonym for egalitarianism is because it's an easier word with an established history, there is no equivalent word for male rights organisations (paternity rights etc. not nutcases, they have names), and because in the 50s and 60s other groups would hitch their flag to (and be welcomed to) feminism as it was established. Hence, the nebulous and non-descriptive term inter-sectional feminism, an odd conglomeration which is simply just egalitarianism with the word feminism in it (hence the confusion).
It's part of the reason why I don't use terms like LGBT(Q+) as it's horribly non-descriptive and the concepts in it are entirely unrelated, the first two are the same thing and focus solely on sex not gender, the third groups lack of rights is covered by the first two. Nobody can agree what T stands for (transsexual, transgender, just trans?, all three mean different things), and considering the supposed definition of Q, that might as well just stand for the rest of them anyway.
I say this not because I have a particularly contrary view point to you, just mainly because I'm a pendent and prefer specific words with no ambiguity and common usage be thrice damned .
Though I suspect that if @darthmeow504, you or I wish to continue this it's probably better in PM so we don't derail this topic about...
...Whatever the hell it's currently about .
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
@artan42 of course I know about the root of the term, but as you hinted at sexism doesn't only affect women and other genders and also homosexual men had absolutely no word in the time but faced the exact same issues the women's right movement pursued. It should be common grounds by now to use feminism and egalitarianism synonymous as it's not solely about women's rights but all sexes' and gender's rights and liberation.
^ 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
@artan42 of course I know about the root of the term, but as you hinted at sexism doesn't only affect women and other genders and also homosexual men had absolutely no word in the time but faced the exact same issues the women's right movement pursued. It should be common grounds by now to use feminism and egalitarianism synonymous as it's not solely about women's rights but all sexes' and gender's rights and liberation.
It is common usage. I just prefer terms with no ambiguity. One cannot deflect or disguise from rights issues by claiming its nothing to do with the feminist proposing them if it's dressed up unambiguously as an egalitarian issue instead of an intersectional feminist one.
It's very common to hear something along the lines of 'why do you care about American police profiling ethnic minorities, youre a woman and it's not a feminist issue'. That means having to explain the difference between intersectional feminism as a synonym for egalitarianism as opposed to feminism as a subsection of egalitarianism.
Unambiguous words cut down on time wasted on pointless arguments.
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
It is common usage. I just prefer terms with no ambiguity. One cannot deflect or disguise from rights issues by claiming its nothing to do with the feminist proposing them if it's dressed up unambiguously as an egalitarian issue instead of an intersectional feminist one.
It's very common to hear something along the lines of 'why do you care about American police profiling ethnic minorities, youre a woman and it's not a feminist issue'. That means having to explain the difference between intersectional feminism as a synonym for egalitarianism as opposed to feminism as a subsection of egalitarianism.
Unambiguous words cut down on time wasted on pointless arguments.
I do get your point, but if someone says something like you described it's time to walk away from the discussion as you probably can't talk to such a mindset anyway
^ 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
It is common usage. I just prefer terms with no ambiguity. One cannot deflect or disguise from rights issues by claiming its nothing to do with the feminist proposing them if it's dressed up unambiguously as an egalitarian issue instead of an intersectional feminist one.
It's very common to hear something along the lines of 'why do you care about American police profiling ethnic minorities, youre a woman and it's not a feminist issue'. That means having to explain the difference between intersectional feminism as a synonym for egalitarianism as opposed to feminism as a subsection of egalitarianism.
Unambiguous words cut down on time wasted on pointless arguments.
I do get your point, but if someone says something like you described it's time to walk away from the discussion as you probably can't talk to such a mindset anyway
I have had minor success before on Reddit. Sometimes you just need to be slightly patient.
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
It's very common to hear something along the lines of 'why do you care about American police profiling ethnic minorities, you're a woman and it's not a feminist issue'.
I don't know where it's "very common" to hear such a silly argument; I can say that I never have, and that disassembling it doesn't even require that I dissect the varieties of egalitarianism.
Rather, my response would be along the lines of, "Does that mean I shouldn't be concerned about mistreatment of minorities because I'm white? Should I not worry about prejudice against LGBTQ because I'm cishet? Why am I not permitted to move against mistreatment of my fellow human beings unless it's my ox being gored?"
It's very common to hear something along the lines of 'why do you care about American police profiling ethnic minorities, you're a woman and it's not a feminist issue'.
I don't know where it's "very common" to hear such a silly argument; I can say that I never have, and that disassembling it doesn't even require that I dissect the varieties of egalitarianism.
Rather, my response would be along the lines of, "Does that mean I shouldn't be concerned about mistreatment of minorities because I'm white? Should I not worry about prejudice against LGBTQ because I'm cishet? Why am I not permitted to move against mistreatment of my fellow human beings unless it's my ox being gored?"
I don't know what parts of the internet you wander in so its commonality is only due to my experience of it.
However it's not a great example because it's not usually a statement and response to an organisation (real one or FB one) seen to be doing something for a group not obviously stated as a group of interest to their organisation.
That's not really something you can reply 'Why am I not permitted to move against mistreatment of my fellow human beings unless it's my ox being gored?' to in the same way it's not the polices job to rescue people from mountains.
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
It is my belief that when Hollywood or its derivatives attempt to be inclusive they are far more concerned with checking off boxes on a questionaire than they are about creating characters with whom a viewer can identify. Delivering the message is far more effective when an otherwise normal character in the show happens to also be a member of a repressed group.
As an example, I cite Link from the 1970's cop drama The Mod Squad. He was just one of the team with a character that didn't rely upon stereotypes. As a black actor trying to survive racism in the TV industry of the 1970s he was exactly what young black Americans wanted to see: a person of color who achieved success in his chosen field. There were episodes which touched on racism, but the character Link could have been played by an Asian, Latino, or European actor and the role would have been the same. This is true inclusiveness. Contrast this to JJ from Good Times, a comedy from the same era, for an example of stereotype typecasting and characterization.
I seriously hope Discovery is Mod Squad inclusive and not Good Times tokenism.
Also: Julie was the summer girlfriend everyone dreamed of. She was healthy-hot, not stage makeup and enhancement surgery hot. To be honest, I should stop now before I incriminate my twenty-year-old self...
If Discovery goes the route of Mod Squad, all I can say is, "Solid."
It is my belief that when Hollywood or its derivatives attempt to be inclusive they are far more concerned with checking off boxes on a questionaire than they are about creating characters with whom a viewer can identify. Delivering the message is far more effective when an otherwise normal character in the show happens to also be a member of a repressed group.
As an example, I cite Link from the 1970's cop drama The Mod Squad. He was just one of the team with a character that didn't rely upon stereotypes. As a black actor trying to survive racism in the TV industry of the 1970s he was exactly what young black Americans wanted to see: a person of color who achieved success in his chosen field. There were episodes which touched on racism, but the character Link could have been played by an Asian, Latino, or European actor and the role would have been the same. This is true inclusiveness. Contrast this to JJ from Good Times, a comedy from the same era, for an example of stereotype typecasting and characterization.
I seriously hope Discovery is Mod Squad inclusive and not Good Times tokenism.
Also: Julie was the summer girlfriend everyone dreamed of. She was healthy-hot, not stage makeup and enhancement surgery hot. To be honest, I should stop now before I incriminate my twenty-year-old self...
If Discovery goes the route of Mod Squad, all I can say is, "Solid."
@brian334, sadly it seems they are leaning in the opposite direction, as the producers were boasting in interviews about how diverse the cast was going to be before they had signed a single actor to the production. So the casting has already been quota based, the rest is going to come down to the actors performance and the writing. I'm not going to pre-judge the actors on their acting chops, but I'm very dubious about the quality of modern Hollywood writers.
Personally I worry that the showrunners will just windup slandering the audience if the response to the show isn't strong enough. They did it previously when Enterprise failed, claiming it was the brand itself that was at fault or that the audience was horrible people.
Intentionally diverse casting is fine, in my opinion. Starfleet is supposed to be multicultural, after all. What I object to is horrid shallow characters whose only purpose is to wave the oppressed minority-of-the-day flag. Even worse is a shallow storyline to establish the minority status which never plays any further part in the show.
In my opinion, it is better to leave out the trait if it is unnecessary to the plot, and if used the trait should be treated as important to the advancement of the story or the character.
Example: I read several articles after we met young Dr.Marcus which made hash of an underwear scene. It was simple sexploitation, according to the articles. What none of them talked about is the confidence of a woman who could change clothes in a room with a notorious juvenile womanizer and maintain her self assurance. In fact, she demonstrated both that she was immune to Kirk's charm and that she was the adult in the room in that one scene.
While I can see that point was missed by a largely juvenile male audience, I got it. And I can get a TRIBBLE or otherwise character if the sexuality of the character matters, such as Kirk's legendary charm, (which was a trait which sometimes affected the story.) But if we get, "Hi, I'm the new TRIBBLE character," and then receives no further development whether as a means of exposing character traits or as plot elements, then it is just tokenism. Tokenism is offensive to me as an amateur writer because it either detracts from the story or it is a huge missed opportunity, and it exploits the audience's bias of what a TRIBBLE character 'should be', thus often reinforcing offensive stereotypes rather than achieving the stated goal of inclusiveness and normalization..
The worst possible case is tokenism via stereotype. Stereotypes are caricatures which exaggerate one aspect of a character, leaving the rest of the character a void. Being TRIBBLE matters less than 1% of a human lifetime. The other 99% of the time they are just people, and they should be written that way.
I agree. "labels" are useful for marketing types to tell people about the characters in the show. But they shouldn't be a summary of the character. If the writers feel the need to bring it up in EVERY episode? yeah, that's a very bad thing IMO.
Allowing? Sorry, but this comment has its basis in the utter confusion over the control of the IP. From everything I've read about the Paramount/CBS split, it's safe to say that CBS calls the shots, end of story. I think the most similar comparison to make is FOX vs. Marvel over the X-Men franchise... FOX is the ones that can make the movies (and TV), but they can't publish their own comic books, merch, and the like. Paramount owns the film rights, but CBS owns the IP.
It's lazy writing, at best. It's also a one-sided story.
Well, when you chop up the paragraph to take it out of context, then yes.
"J.J. just threw up his hands," the individual told TheWrap. "The message was, 'Why set up all this when we'll just be competing against ourselves?' The studio wanted to please Bad Robot, but it was allowing CBS to say yay or nay when it came to what was happening with the 'Star Trek' products."
See, this is an interview. When they conduct an interview with someone who wants to remain anonymous, the responsible outlets then reach out to the parties being talked about for comment. Which TheWrap did. Paramount DECLINED to comment and Bad Robot did not respond at all, so the interview stands uncontested. CBS did respond, but did not comment on the validity of the report.
Additionally, as the report continues, they actually name the individuals who have insight into the situation beyond what the anonymous source says. So far, TheWrap has conducted themselves professionally.
Fans have used this story to paint Abrams in a bad light, as the Evil Franchise Killer... "SEE?! THAT STAR WARS GUY HATES OUR STUFF!!" It's not that simple, and it's not that childish. Had the IP not been split over two companies, things would have been very different... Abrams could've easily gotten his way, had Trek been owned 100% by either CBS or Paramount.
This was an example of Hollywood business, sensationalized into something more than it was.
Seems to me you have an axe grind. Just like those "haters". Everything about the report seems professional. You'll have to provide something more than "those darn haters" and a sentence out of context.
[Yeha, that's what I was getting at. I'd be willing to wager that the article is less than half truth. I large part because the people who wrote it had fragmentary information.
Again, they had several interviews and reached out to Paramount, Bad Robot and CBS regarding the one anonymous source. If Paramount and Bad Robot don't want to tell "their side of the story", then there is nothing to report on. At this point, whatever you feel is "the other side" is speculation.
Oh please. Stop treating TheWrap.com as some bastion of journalistic integrity. It's a Hollywood gossip website, period.
As I said, I'm sure there's a nugget of truth in this, but it's not as sinister as some fans like to paint. It's a typical Hollywood gossip column, wrapped in vague quotes from "sources close to the situation."
In the end, I don't care if it's 100% accurate or a complete lie. Whether it's J.J. Abrams or Big Bad Les Moonves, I have little patience for fan conspiracy theories that ultimately are used just to support their views of NOT getting their way.
So, it looks like the show will slowly pivot towards a more TOS look. Now, you could ask why did the PTBs make such a departure in design in the first place, if they're only going to walk it all back later... a valid question... but, as we have discussed in here earlier, designs (ships, graphics, uniforms, etc.) can change. It's silly to write off a show because of that, IMO.
I am also still very certain we will see a TOS connie in DSC. They simply can't pass on that and when the time comes I'll say "I OINKING KNEW IT!"
^ 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
I agree. "labels" are useful for marketing types to tell people about the characters in the show. But they shouldn't be a summary of the character. If the writers feel the need to bring it up in EVERY episode? yeah, that's a very bad thing IMO.
And if that happens, I'll agree to lead the chorus of boos. Thus far, we have no data upon which to base a belief, aside from some fans' kneejerk reaction when they hear the phrase "the character is g.ay". It's kind of like hearing that Nichelle Nichols was cast as Uhura, and assuming the role would be that of a militant Black Panther. (Not saying that happened - I was too young to have heard about such a thing if it did - but it is, I think, a fair analogy.)
Oh please. Stop treating TheWrap.com as some bastion of journalistic integrity. It's a Hollywood gossip website, period.
Who conducts themselves with more professionalism than many mainstream outlets. If they print gossip, they reach out for comment prior to posting their article. You may disagree with their content, but they are professional.
As I said, I'm sure there's a nugget of truth in this, but it's not as sinister as some fans like to paint. It's a typical Hollywood gossip column, wrapped in vague quotes from "sources close to the situation."
In the end, I don't care if it's 100% accurate or a complete lie. Whether it's J.J. Abrams or Big Bad Les Moonves, I have little patience for fan conspiracy theories that ultimately are used just to support their views of NOT getting their way.
What does any of this have to do with anything?
JJ wanted to sell JJ-Trek merchandise. Market research showed "brand confusion" between JJ-Trek and Old Busted Trek. JJ asked CBS Consumer Products to pull their license for Trek products that "confused" consumers. CBS Consumer Products said "No". There is no "conspiracy".
There is nothing else to tell. Today, merchandising an IP can lead to equal or greater profits than the theatrical release. Various people lamented at the loss of profit. They even talked about the lack of "multimedia direction in merchandising". They went on to talk about Star Wars and how it is a merchandising juggernaut and would be a better fit for JJ's expectations.
Not sure how any of this makes JJ-Trek bad. It's the mediocre to terrible execution of the JJ-Trek movies that makes them bad. Not JJ's failed forays into merchandising.
I agree. "labels" are useful for marketing types to tell people about the characters in the show. But they shouldn't be a summary of the character. If the writers feel the need to bring it up in EVERY episode? yeah, that's a very bad thing IMO.
And if that happens, I'll agree to lead the chorus of boos. Thus far, we have no data upon which to base a belief, aside from some fans' kneejerk reaction when they hear the phrase "the character is g.ay". It's kind of like hearing that Nichelle Nichols was cast as Uhura, and assuming the role would be that of a militant Black Panther. (Not saying that happened - I was too young to have heard about such a thing if it did - but it is, I think, a fair analogy.)
It's not though. It would be like Gene doing a press release saying "We've hired a black chick to be on the bridge (look how Right On we are)"
It's virtue signalling (a disgustingly narcissistic practice) and relying on Minority Cred to draw interest (IMO a weak practice)
It's not just tokenism, it's using a demographic as a marketing lure. So much for saying "We have a new show coming soon, check it out and let us know what you think!"
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
So, it looks like the show will slowly pivot towards a more TOS look. Now, you could ask why did the PTBs make such a departure in design in the first place, if they're only going to walk it all back later... a valid question... but, as we have discussed in here earlier, designs (ships, graphics, uniforms, etc.) can change. It's silly to write off a show because of that, IMO.
Interesting article indeed, thanks for the share. Its timing, I consider interesting. When the initial look of the Discovery was released at the comicon, it was resoundingly derided. Their response? "Oh this is just concept art..." And they changed it.
There's been months of feedback on social media since the trailers, where people have pointed out the glaring aesthetic inconsistencies to TOS, and how they feel this is a show which is Trek in name only, coasting on the name and nostalgia to get subscribers, while providing a totally different concept (which under any other circumstances, would be written off as alternate universe/reboot/etc)
And now they say that things will be shifting towards the TOS aesthetic.
To me, that comes across as nothing more than damage-control placations to try and retain interest from people who have already decided it's not something they're intersted in subscribing to watch
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Gene would have happily done that exact thing to get publicity for his show - if it weren't for the fact that in the context of 1966, that would likely have led to riots in the street outside the studio and quite possibly someone setting fire to the place. Gene had to slide Nichelle in quietly, or it wouldn't have been allowed at all. (Nichelle's own recollection, in her autobiography, was that Gene had told studio execs that he "wanted to add a little color" to the bridge set, and they assumed he meant changing the set dressing. By the time they found out, it was too late - she'd already been signed to a contract, and the SAG was by then quite the colorblind union.)
There's a reason we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia this year, after all. (And several states still had antimiscegenation laws on the books even after that; Alabama was the last holdout in 2000, thirty-three years after the decision, and the amendment to the state constitution was passed with only 60% of voters agreeing.)
Gene would have happily done that exact thing to get publicity for his show - if it weren't for the fact that in the context of 1966, that would likely have led to riots in the street outside the studio and quite possibly someone setting fire to the place. Gene had to slide Nichelle in quietly, or it wouldn't have been allowed at all. (Nichelle's own recollection, in her autobiography, was that Gene had told studio execs that he "wanted to add a little color" to the bridge set, and they assumed he meant changing the set dressing. By the time they found out, it was too late - she'd already been signed to a contract, and the SAG was by then quite the colorblind union.)
There's a reason we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia this year, after all. (And several states still had antimiscegenation laws on the books even after that; Alabama was the last holdout in 2000, thirty-three years after the decision, and the amendment to the state constitution was passed with only 60% of voters agreeing.)
I didn't say that he wouldn't It's no secret that Gene was all about the $$s, and had be lived to hear it, I bet he would have made "Boats n Hoes" his personal Theme Music I said, that the comparison you were making, with regards audience perception, wasn't accurate
None of the comments about the TRIBBLE character, have revolved around homophobes saying that they don't want to see some limp-wristed Flamer insisting on getting a seat at the Captain's Table (which would be the equivalent of people wondering if Uhura would be a Black Panther) but people complaining about the use of identity politics being leveraged to try and gain viewers
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Gene would have happily done that exact thing to get publicity for his show - if it weren't for the fact that in the context of 1966, that would likely have led to riots in the street outside the studio and quite possibly someone setting fire to the place. Gene had to slide Nichelle in quietly, or it wouldn't have been allowed at all. (Nichelle's own recollection, in her autobiography, was that Gene had told studio execs that he "wanted to add a little color" to the bridge set, and they assumed he meant changing the set dressing. By the time they found out, it was too late - she'd already been signed to a contract, and the SAG was by then quite the colorblind union.)
There's a reason we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia this year, after all. (And several states still had antimiscegenation laws on the books even after that; Alabama was the last holdout in 2000, thirty-three years after the decision, and the amendment to the state constitution was passed with only 60% of voters agreeing.)
I didn't say that he wouldn't It's no secret that Gene was all about the $$s, and had be lived to hear it, I bet he would have made "Boats n Hoes" his personal Theme Music I said, that the comparison you were making, with regards audience perception, wasn't accurate
None of the comments about the **** character, have revolved around homophobes saying that they don't want to see some limp-wristed Flamer insisting on getting a seat at the Captain's Table (which would be the equivalent of people wondering if Uhura would be a Black Panther) but people complaining about the use of identity politics being leveraged to try and gain viewers
People are all up in arms about them saying that mentioning there will be a TRIBBLE character.
You yourself say if Gene would have though TRIBBLE would improve his ratings, he would have pointed out the black officer.
Now, the Gene-successor in the role can say this to improve the popularity of the show, and so they make a point to mention it.
How does from that follow that the show will suffer in any way from it?
Do you really think the act of mentioning a minority group being part of the cast is worse than just having a minority group as part of the cast? That this will somehow lessen the quality of the story?
Or did you actually always think that a woman of color shouldn't have been on the bridge of the original Enterprise, either?
Or is your worry just that the new Star Trek will be preachy in some way?
Do you really think it will be worse than TOS or TNG have been?
Do you think social messages are not part of Star Trek, or need to be dialed down?
Is that where you make the cut of what makes Trek and what doesn't? Classic Set design a must, progressive values a bust?
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Gene would have happily done that exact thing to get publicity for his show - if it weren't for the fact that in the context of 1966, that would likely have led to riots in the street outside the studio and quite possibly someone setting fire to the place. Gene had to slide Nichelle in quietly, or it wouldn't have been allowed at all. (Nichelle's own recollection, in her autobiography, was that Gene had told studio execs that he "wanted to add a little color" to the bridge set, and they assumed he meant changing the set dressing. By the time they found out, it was too late - she'd already been signed to a contract, and the SAG was by then quite the colorblind union.)
There's a reason we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia this year, after all. (And several states still had antimiscegenation laws on the books even after that; Alabama was the last holdout in 2000, thirty-three years after the decision, and the amendment to the state constitution was passed with only 60% of voters agreeing.)
I didn't say that he wouldn't It's no secret that Gene was all about the $$s, and had be lived to hear it, I bet he would have made "Boats n Hoes" his personal Theme Music I said, that the comparison you were making, with regards audience perception, wasn't accurate
None of the comments about the **** character, have revolved around homophobes saying that they don't want to see some limp-wristed Flamer insisting on getting a seat at the Captain's Table (which would be the equivalent of people wondering if Uhura would be a Black Panther) but people complaining about the use of identity politics being leveraged to try and gain viewers
People are all up in arms about them saying that mentioning there will be a **** character.
You yourself say if Gene would have though **** would improve his ratings, he would have pointed out the black officer.
Now, the Gene-successor in the role can say this to improve the popularity of the show, and so they make a point to mention it.
How does from that follow that the show will suffer in any way from it?
Do you really think the act of mentioning a minority group being part of the cast is worse than just having a minority group as part of the cast? That this will somehow lessen the quality of the story?
Or did you actually always think that a woman of color shouldn't have been on the bridge of the original Enterprise, either?
Or is your worry just that the new Star Trek will be preachy in some way?
Do you really think it will be worse than TOS or TNG have been?
Do you think social messages are not part of Star Trek, or need to be dialed down?
Is that where you make the cut of what makes Trek and what doesn't? Classic Set design a must, progressive values a bust?
You've also missed the point I was making: It's not about what a producer will Do to get attention for a show, but how the audience they're trying to court, will React to such courtship. My example was to give an example of how Gene may have attempted to pander to the Right On Kidz, if that was what he was trying to do - but he didn't. As many have said, Star Trek/TOS's strength, was that they Showed, not Told. They made the presentation, then left it to the audience to make up their own mind. They didn't do that era's equivalent of virtue signalling
*Additional:
You're asking nothing but a series of irrelevant loaded questions, which I'm not delving into, but, The Show has observably suffered in terms of potential popularity, as a direct result of how they've handled the pre-release information. Nothing to do with suffering as in quality of material suffering as a result of the inclusion, but everything to do with preception. Popularity, viewer engagement, subscriber attraction. Subscriber retention needs the audience to actually see the show todecide if they want to remain viewers. But how that show is promoted and advertized, that has everything to do with how many potential subscribers will even want to sign up to tune in
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Comments
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Headshots:
http://imgur.com/a/TTUoX
He is planning on releasing these costumes files to the community later this month to celebrate the new show
> Hard to say, with Braga.
>
> Yes, it's true he's responsible (at least in part) for some of Trek's more memorable episodes (and, not memorable like "Threshold," LOL). However, he's also responsible for being the showrunner of the last two Trek series, and was left "holding the bag" with Rick Berman as the franchise slammed to a halt.
>
> Braga still holds his "No, seriously, please like me" panel at STLV... and, he strikes me as someone that hasn't accepted and moved on from past mistakes. His most recent version was... sad, really. I think he's a genuine fan of the franchise, and he cares about his work. I don't think, however, he's capable of executing better television as a result of learning from his mistakes (taking chances, truly caring about in-show continuity, etc)... and that's based on his body of work post-Enterprise.
The viewer analyses I've seen of Braga generally say he does a few things very well, such as head-game episodes (I haven't honestly taken the time to independently verify this). IOW he has his area of expertise, but is mediocre at best outside of it, and making him the showrunner ran into the Peter Principle.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
"J.J. just threw up his hands," the individual told TheWrap. "The message was, 'Why set up all this when we'll just be competing against ourselves?' The studio wanted to please Bad Robot, but it was allowing CBS to say yay or nay when it came to what was happening with the 'Star Trek' products."
See, this is an interview. When they conduct an interview with someone who wants to remain anonymous, the responsible outlets then reach out to the parties being talked about for comment. Which TheWrap did. Paramount DECLINED to comment and Bad Robot did not respond at all, so the interview stands uncontested. CBS did respond, but did not comment on the validity of the report.
Additionally, as the report continues, they actually name the individuals who have insight into the situation beyond what the anonymous source says. So far, TheWrap has conducted themselves professionally.
Seems to me you have an axe grind. Just like those "haters". Everything about the report seems professional. You'll have to provide something more than "those darn haters" and a sentence out of context.
Again, they had several interviews and reached out to Paramount, Bad Robot and CBS regarding the one anonymous source. If Paramount and Bad Robot don't want to tell "their side of the story", then there is nothing to report on. At this point, whatever you feel is "the other side" is speculation.
Actually, feminism - despite the name which is rooted in the circumstances of it's time - doesn't limit itself actually to the female sex. Feminism is about the abolishing of sexism, regardless of a person's sex or gender. Otherwise though you are correct.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
YMMV on that. Like with any word, the specific meaning is down to the words root, in this case femmi- so it's the drive for (at first) female emancipation, (then) female rights, (then) female equality and so on.
It's a specific subset of egalitarianism dealing with women. The reason it's often used as a synonym for egalitarianism is because it's an easier word with an established history, there is no equivalent word for male rights organisations (paternity rights etc. not nutcases, they have names), and because in the 50s and 60s other groups would hitch their flag to (and be welcomed to) feminism as it was established. Hence, the nebulous and non-descriptive term inter-sectional feminism, an odd conglomeration which is simply just egalitarianism with the word feminism in it (hence the confusion).
It's part of the reason why I don't use terms like LGBT(Q+) as it's horribly non-descriptive and the concepts in it are entirely unrelated, the first two are the same thing and focus solely on sex not gender, the third groups lack of rights is covered by the first two. Nobody can agree what T stands for (transsexual, transgender, just trans?, all three mean different things), and considering the supposed definition of Q, that might as well just stand for the rest of them anyway.
I say this not because I have a particularly contrary view point to you, just mainly because I'm a pendent and prefer specific words with no ambiguity and common usage be thrice damned
Though I suspect that if @darthmeow504, you or I wish to continue this it's probably better in PM so we don't derail this topic about...
...Whatever the hell it's currently about
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!
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
It is common usage. I just prefer terms with no ambiguity. One cannot deflect or disguise from rights issues by claiming its nothing to do with the feminist proposing them if it's dressed up unambiguously as an egalitarian issue instead of an intersectional feminist one.
It's very common to hear something along the lines of 'why do you care about American police profiling ethnic minorities, youre a woman and it's not a feminist issue'. That means having to explain the difference between intersectional feminism as a synonym for egalitarianism as opposed to feminism as a subsection of egalitarianism.
Unambiguous words cut down on time wasted on pointless arguments.
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!
I do get your point, but if someone says something like you described it's time to walk away from the discussion as you probably can't talk to such a mindset anyway
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I have had minor success before on Reddit. Sometimes you just need to be slightly patient.
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!
Rather, my response would be along the lines of, "Does that mean I shouldn't be concerned about mistreatment of minorities because I'm white? Should I not worry about prejudice against LGBTQ because I'm cishet? Why am I not permitted to move against mistreatment of my fellow human beings unless it's my ox being gored?"
I don't know what parts of the internet you wander in so its commonality is only due to my experience of it.
However it's not a great example because it's not usually a statement and response to an organisation (real one or FB one) seen to be doing something for a group not obviously stated as a group of interest to their organisation.
That's not really something you can reply 'Why am I not permitted to move against mistreatment of my fellow human beings unless it's my ox being gored?' to in the same way it's not the polices job to rescue people from mountains.
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!
As an example, I cite Link from the 1970's cop drama The Mod Squad. He was just one of the team with a character that didn't rely upon stereotypes. As a black actor trying to survive racism in the TV industry of the 1970s he was exactly what young black Americans wanted to see: a person of color who achieved success in his chosen field. There were episodes which touched on racism, but the character Link could have been played by an Asian, Latino, or European actor and the role would have been the same. This is true inclusiveness. Contrast this to JJ from Good Times, a comedy from the same era, for an example of stereotype typecasting and characterization.
I seriously hope Discovery is Mod Squad inclusive and not Good Times tokenism.
Also: Julie was the summer girlfriend everyone dreamed of. She was healthy-hot, not stage makeup and enhancement surgery hot. To be honest, I should stop now before I incriminate my twenty-year-old self...
If Discovery goes the route of Mod Squad, all I can say is, "Solid."
Too late, which one was Julie?
Personally I worry that the showrunners will just windup slandering the audience if the response to the show isn't strong enough. They did it previously when Enterprise failed, claiming it was the brand itself that was at fault or that the audience was horrible people.
In my opinion, it is better to leave out the trait if it is unnecessary to the plot, and if used the trait should be treated as important to the advancement of the story or the character.
Example: I read several articles after we met young Dr.Marcus which made hash of an underwear scene. It was simple sexploitation, according to the articles. What none of them talked about is the confidence of a woman who could change clothes in a room with a notorious juvenile womanizer and maintain her self assurance. In fact, she demonstrated both that she was immune to Kirk's charm and that she was the adult in the room in that one scene.
While I can see that point was missed by a largely juvenile male audience, I got it. And I can get a TRIBBLE or otherwise character if the sexuality of the character matters, such as Kirk's legendary charm, (which was a trait which sometimes affected the story.) But if we get, "Hi, I'm the new TRIBBLE character," and then receives no further development whether as a means of exposing character traits or as plot elements, then it is just tokenism. Tokenism is offensive to me as an amateur writer because it either detracts from the story or it is a huge missed opportunity, and it exploits the audience's bias of what a TRIBBLE character 'should be', thus often reinforcing offensive stereotypes rather than achieving the stated goal of inclusiveness and normalization..
The worst possible case is tokenism via stereotype. Stereotypes are caricatures which exaggerate one aspect of a character, leaving the rest of the character a void. Being TRIBBLE matters less than 1% of a human lifetime. The other 99% of the time they are just people, and they should be written that way.
My character Tsin'xing
Oh please. Stop treating TheWrap.com as some bastion of journalistic integrity. It's a Hollywood gossip website, period.
As I said, I'm sure there's a nugget of truth in this, but it's not as sinister as some fans like to paint. It's a typical Hollywood gossip column, wrapped in vague quotes from "sources close to the situation."
In the end, I don't care if it's 100% accurate or a complete lie. Whether it's J.J. Abrams or Big Bad Les Moonves, I have little patience for fan conspiracy theories that ultimately are used just to support their views of NOT getting their way.
So, it looks like the show will slowly pivot towards a more TOS look. Now, you could ask why did the PTBs make such a departure in design in the first place, if they're only going to walk it all back later... a valid question... but, as we have discussed in here earlier, designs (ships, graphics, uniforms, etc.) can change. It's silly to write off a show because of that, IMO.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
What does any of this have to do with anything?
JJ wanted to sell JJ-Trek merchandise. Market research showed "brand confusion" between JJ-Trek and Old Busted Trek. JJ asked CBS Consumer Products to pull their license for Trek products that "confused" consumers. CBS Consumer Products said "No". There is no "conspiracy".
There is nothing else to tell. Today, merchandising an IP can lead to equal or greater profits than the theatrical release. Various people lamented at the loss of profit. They even talked about the lack of "multimedia direction in merchandising". They went on to talk about Star Wars and how it is a merchandising juggernaut and would be a better fit for JJ's expectations.
Not sure how any of this makes JJ-Trek bad. It's the mediocre to terrible execution of the JJ-Trek movies that makes them bad. Not JJ's failed forays into merchandising.
It's virtue signalling (a disgustingly narcissistic practice) and relying on Minority Cred to draw interest (IMO a weak practice)
It's not just tokenism, it's using a demographic as a marketing lure. So much for saying "We have a new show coming soon, check it out and let us know what you think!"
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
There's been months of feedback on social media since the trailers, where people have pointed out the glaring aesthetic inconsistencies to TOS, and how they feel this is a show which is Trek in name only, coasting on the name and nostalgia to get subscribers, while providing a totally different concept (which under any other circumstances, would be written off as alternate universe/reboot/etc)
And now they say that things will be shifting towards the TOS aesthetic.
To me, that comes across as nothing more than damage-control placations to try and retain interest from people who have already decided it's not something they're intersted in subscribing to watch
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Gene would have happily done that exact thing to get publicity for his show - if it weren't for the fact that in the context of 1966, that would likely have led to riots in the street outside the studio and quite possibly someone setting fire to the place. Gene had to slide Nichelle in quietly, or it wouldn't have been allowed at all. (Nichelle's own recollection, in her autobiography, was that Gene had told studio execs that he "wanted to add a little color" to the bridge set, and they assumed he meant changing the set dressing. By the time they found out, it was too late - she'd already been signed to a contract, and the SAG was by then quite the colorblind union.)
There's a reason we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia this year, after all. (And several states still had antimiscegenation laws on the books even after that; Alabama was the last holdout in 2000, thirty-three years after the decision, and the amendment to the state constitution was passed with only 60% of voters agreeing.)
None of the comments about the TRIBBLE character, have revolved around homophobes saying that they don't want to see some limp-wristed Flamer insisting on getting a seat at the Captain's Table (which would be the equivalent of people wondering if Uhura would be a Black Panther) but people complaining about the use of identity politics being leveraged to try and gain viewers
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
You yourself say if Gene would have though TRIBBLE would improve his ratings, he would have pointed out the black officer.
Now, the Gene-successor in the role can say this to improve the popularity of the show, and so they make a point to mention it.
How does from that follow that the show will suffer in any way from it?
Do you really think the act of mentioning a minority group being part of the cast is worse than just having a minority group as part of the cast? That this will somehow lessen the quality of the story?
Or did you actually always think that a woman of color shouldn't have been on the bridge of the original Enterprise, either?
Or is your worry just that the new Star Trek will be preachy in some way?
Do you really think it will be worse than TOS or TNG have been?
Do you think social messages are not part of Star Trek, or need to be dialed down?
Is that where you make the cut of what makes Trek and what doesn't? Classic Set design a must, progressive values a bust?
*Additional:
You're asking nothing but a series of irrelevant loaded questions, which I'm not delving into, but, The Show has observably suffered in terms of potential popularity, as a direct result of how they've handled the pre-release information. Nothing to do with suffering as in quality of material suffering as a result of the inclusion, but everything to do with preception. Popularity, viewer engagement, subscriber attraction. Subscriber retention needs the audience to actually see the show todecide if they want to remain viewers. But how that show is promoted and advertized, that has everything to do with how many potential subscribers will even want to sign up to tune in
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth