test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

My problems with TRIBBLE

11112141617

Comments

  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,474 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    Yes, Spock as always and consistently been the stoic who never displays a trace of emotion.

    Spock_Smile.jpg

    The Cage is supposedly set in 2254 and set 2 years before Season 1 of Discovery since The Menagerie episode states that the Talos IV incident happened 13 years earlier. The death of his adopted sister between 2257 and 2265 could explain how a happy Vulcan could turn into a stoic Vulcan that never talks about his adopted sister.
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 9,318 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    jonsills wrote: »
    Yes, Spock as always and consistently been the stoic who never displays a trace of emotion.

    Spock_Smile.jpg

    The Cage is supposedly set in 2254 and set 2 years before Season 1 of Discovery since The Menagerie episode states that the Talos IV incident happened 13 years earlier. The death of his adopted sister between 2257 and 2265 could explain how a happy Vulcan could turn into a stoic Vulcan that never talks about his adopted sister.
    What I was commenting on, however, was the silly idea that the characterization of Spock has been utterly invariant across every single iteration of Trek, and showing a Spock who has any trace of emotion in ST:D would be "inconsistent" and "canon-breaking". Meanwhile, Spock himself would disagree, as expecting any living being, Vulcan or otherwise, to remain exactly the same in all major respects and never experience even a moment of personal development would be illogical.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,945 Arc User
    edited August 2018
    Okay, getting back to the original topic, here's my problems with the series (as well as some things I like about it). Spoiler warning if you click links.

    Con:
    • First half of the season is overall way too rushed. If they were going to have a major war arc, they needed to use Babylon 5's approach and take their time setting it up properly.
    • I dislike the hyper-focusing on Burnham. Not because I don't like her personally, but because I prefer the TNG/DS9 ensemble approach to the TOS/VOY/ENT "three or so characters are properly developed, everyone else is a talking prop" style.
    • The politics are done extremely poorly. If you want to allegorize current politics, i.e. nativism/ultranationalism/the alt-right, the Klingons and the mirror universe are completely the wrong kind of adversary to use. You need to think less "outside enemy" and more Terra Prime (or, the Vulcan "logic extremists" that were introduced in the episode with Sarek, or even Section 31), somebody who is inside your macroculture and doesn't like where it's going. (You can also combine that approach with the Klingon war and allegorize the European refugee crisis.)
    • One word: Culbergate. I'll let GeekDad's Jules Sherred (who is also admin of one of the major Star Trek discussion groups on Google+) explain further: 1, 2
    • Burnham and the Klingons. If you're going to write a basically racist main character like that, you need to be proving her wrong, not reinforcing the negative stereotype she professes at every opportunity.
    • Second half of the series significantly undermines the first half. (Spoiler warning if you click the link.)

    Pro:
    • I like Saru and Stamets, a lot.
    • I like certain episodes' focus on the experiences of soldiers at war ("Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" in particular is pretty much totally about PTSD), it reminds me favorably of late DS9.

    I could give a rat's TRIBBLE about the visuals and tech nitpicking, although the season 1 uniforms honestly would make more sense as dress instead of working/service uniforms.
    "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"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,230 Arc User
    starswordc wrote: »
    Burnham and the Klingons. If you're going to write a basically racist main character like that, you need to be proving her wrong, not reinforcing the negative stereotype she professes at every opportunity.
    Well, I take it like in the old westerns where you have the shell-shocked cavalry vet who's paranoid about indian attacks. He's terrified because he's seen what can happen and assumes the worst because he's SEEN the worst. The character comes across as a raving crazy, but... then you realize that it's not craziness and founded in reality.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,945 Arc User
    > @markhawkman said:
    > Well, I take it like in the old westerns where you have the shell-shocked cavalry vet who's paranoid about indian attacks. He's terrified because he's seen what can happen and assumes the worst because he's SEEN the worst. The character comes across as a raving crazy, but... then you realize that it's not craziness and founded in reality.

    Yeah, about that: you realize how ridiculously racist most of those old Westerns are? :tongue:

    There's a better and more relevant analogy available: an American who "hates Muslims", except the only thing he actually knows about Islam is bin Laden and those nineteen petaQs who did the 9/11 attacks. He doesn't know that Islam has nearly as many denominations and sects as Christianity, he doesn't know that the Qur'an explicitly commands Muslims to PROTECT members of other organized religions from persecution, and he especially doesn't know (or at least really believe) that most Muslims can't stand those bomb-wearing lunatics any more than he can.

    How do you transpose that to Klingons? You don't shy away from the conflict, but you also take pains to show sides of Klingon culture that can be portrayed sympathetically: Klingons who actually practice what they preach WRT Kahlessian philosophy (e.g. Klingon culture values standing up for yourself and putting your money where your mouth is), Klingons who have a sense of humor, and Klingons who think T'Kuvma and Kol and their ilk are honorless petaQs and a bigger threat to the Empire than the Federation is.

    Hell, DS9 managed to do some of that with the freaking Jem'hadar a couple times. The Klingons are easy mode.
    "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"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
    edited August 2018
    azrael605 wrote: »
    CBS owns Star Trek lock stock & barrel, they own any and all associated characters and can use them as they see fit.
    And I can criticize their ham-fisted and shallow treatment of said characters as I see fit. I can also give them feedback in order to improve the quality of their sh't characters and writing.

    Spock, showing up and saying technical stuff (before he starts braiding Burnham's hair) is trite. It's possible that he serves some purpose for the story, but it seems unlikely that it isn't a role that could be filled by any other character (maybe even the Discovery's own crew). He is fanservice to the detriment of Star Trek: Discovery developing it's own characters. Anything the writers do with this character will be criticized by detractors and overshadow the existing characters. He IS Spock, after all.
    Post edited by redvenge on
  • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
    starswordc wrote: »
    [*] One word: Culbergate. I'll let GeekDad's Jules Sherred (who is also admin of one of the major Star Trek discussion groups on Google+) explain further: 1, 2
    I think we should have a dialogue about your "part 1" there.
    GeekDad wrote:
    Don’t let anyone ever attempt to convince you that the TRIBBLE community is asking for special treatment.
    Alright. We will start with this premise. Until you ask for special treatment, I will not assume that is what you want.
    GeekDad wrote:
    If Culber doesn’t come back fully and completely and lives happily ever after with Stamets, then the showrunners are going to be dead to me because they’ve committed one of the many cardinal sins in regards to the treatment of TRIBBLE characters: using them as throwaway objects to serve the plot after tricking us into thinking we’d finally see ourselves in the franchise we love the most.
    ...

    You do realize you ARE asking for special treatment, yes? You realize you are asking for "TRIBBLE" characters (at least this one) to be IMMUNE from death?

    Let's talk about characters for a moment. Any character.

    If your character is immune from death or bodily harm, that is "special treatment". The audience will not be invested if someone threatens said character. That character will be handed all their victories and we will not believe they were hard fought, because there is no threat of harm or even failure.

    As our shows become more diverse, as more of the cast is composed of "minorities", those characters will have to step up. They will have to face harm, defeat, even death. I realize the internet is full of people who get their writing degree from MovieTropes.com, but we must change how we view these characters or we lessen them. We do those characters, and the audience, a disservice by infantilizing them, cocooned in a bubble of obvious plot armor.

    The cast of Star Trek: Discovery has already stated they are bringing Culber back. You won. This character, and his relatioship to Stamets, is inviolate. Nothing will ever tear them apart. As a result, their "destined love" is now hollow and meaningless. They did not choose to be together. YOU chose for them to be together. They will never grow. We will never feel any tension if their relationship is threatened because they are fated to be together.
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,894 Arc User
    I think - but could be totally wrong - that they wanted the Klingons to feel like unknown aliens anymore. In the 23rd century, "we" don't really understand Klingons yet. Changing their look again might also help the feeling of unknown to the audience. (Though I kinda feel the bigger reason for the make-up might be the "there's a new boss in the office and he needs to his stamps on everything").
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 35,813 Arc User
    I think - but could be totally wrong - that they wanted the Klingons to feel like unknown aliens anymore. In the 23rd century, "we" don't really understand Klingons yet. Changing their look again might also help the feeling of unknown to the audience. (Though I kinda feel the bigger reason for the make-up might be the "there's a new boss in the office and he needs to his stamps on everything").

    ...but he only stamped it three times! *Audience gasps in disgust.*

    Okay, so yeah, I couldn't care less for the Klingon redesign (and I am blooming annoyed at the production team for spreading that rumour that these weren't Klingons. That really rubbed me the wrong way.) There are changes in the show that I like, but I really don't all that much care for how they redesigned the Klingons. I don't dislike them, but I don't like them that much either.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,230 Arc User
    starswordc wrote: »
    > @markhawkman said:
    > Well, I take it like in the old westerns where you have the shell-shocked cavalry vet who's paranoid about indian attacks. He's terrified because he's seen what can happen and assumes the worst because he's SEEN the worst. The character comes across as a raving crazy, but... then you realize that it's not craziness and founded in reality.

    Yeah, about that: you realize how ridiculously racist most of those old Westerns are? :tongue:
    SOME of them. The raving crazy thing tends to come up in the better ones though. Mainly because in the ones that are pale stereotypes, a character who hates Indians isn't seen as crazy. It's even more fun when the raving crazy guy has to work with friendly Indians. Obviously that last part doesn't apply to Burnham, yet.

    Yes I know there's that old "you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover" saying, but what Burnham did is more like judging a book based on it's index and first chapter.

    That and TNG and later Klingons were more inclined to restraining their natural tendency to be ---s, so judging TOS Klingons based on Worf's actions is like judging a book... based on a summary of a different book.

    See, in Discovery, the lack of aggression from the Klingons was not because they were being nice, the Houses just didn't see a war against the Feds as winnable, so none of them was willing to commit to attacking. This was part of why T'kuvma needed to unite the Houses. NONE of them individually had the strength to pull off a large scale attack. But if they worked together they could stage an attack that had a good chance at accomplishing something.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 9,318 Arc User
    Starsword, I think your analogy is in error. Recall that Burnham did have some small previous exposure to Klingons - that's how she wound up in Sarek's care, after all.

    I'd liken it more to someone who developed an irrational hatred and fear of Muslims after having their home village destroyed and parents killed by some weird splinter group like al-Qaeda. Yes, you and I are well aware that they represent the values of Islam as well as some fellow standing on a street corner screaming about the pigeons in his brain represents the concept of government, but our hypothetical victim doesn't see it that way. Burnham's entire exposure to Klingons has been watching them kill people she cares about. Her reaction, while unfortunate, is understandable - and if she could ever find a Klink who actually lives up to the standards his people are supposed to care about, it might even be curable. (Sadly, I think the first one who ever existed was Worf...)
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,230 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    and if she could ever find a Klink who actually lives up to the standards his people are supposed to care about, it might even be curable. (Sadly, I think the first one who ever existed was Worf...)
    That's just it... from what I've seen the norm for Klingons is to treat "honor" as bragging rights, with no connection to the concept of morality. Obviously Klingons DO have a concept of morality, it's just that it's only tenuously linked to honor.

    Why is this important? Well, to ascertain whether Burnham is justified in her disdain of Klingons, you first need to discern if her assessment of a "typical" Klingon is correct. Well, given how few Klingons displayed a moral objection to the idea of attacking the Federation, I'd say that if she is incorrect, it is merely a matter of degree. IE your "average" Klingon is not what we would consider to be a good person and the Klingon houses generally avoid attacking Federation colonies because of caution rather than because they feel it's morally wrong to murder Humans and steal their stuff.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,474 Arc User
    starswordc wrote: »
    There's a better and more relevant analogy available: an American who "hates Muslims", except the only thing he actually knows about Islam is bin Laden and those nineteen petaQs who did the 9/11 attacks. He doesn't know that Islam has nearly as many denominations and sects as Christianity, he doesn't know that the Qur'an explicitly commands Muslims to PROTECT members of other organized religions from persecution, and he especially doesn't know (or at least really believe) that most Muslims can't stand those bomb-wearing lunatics any more than he can.

    Except that almost everyone treats Islam as a monolithic force instead of a group of religious factions that have different values and beliefs. Most people don't bother to learn the differences between the various Islam factions where there are moderate and radical factions.
  • shadowfang240shadowfang240 Member Posts: 35,896 Arc User
    and i'm sure the muslims do the same for christians​​
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!

    RIP Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks & Calvin Munerlyn

    blacklivesmatter.png

    #LegalizeAwoo

    A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
    An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
    A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
    A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"


    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."

    "Curiosity is bad! It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed...and more importantly, it makes you poor!"
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,474 Arc User
    and i'm sure the muslims do the same for christians​​

    Obviously, but the differences between Christian factions aren't as extreme as the differences between Islam factions.
  • shadowfang240shadowfang240 Member Posts: 35,896 Arc User
    uh, i beg to differ...westboro baptist church, anyone?​​
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!

    RIP Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks & Calvin Munerlyn

    blacklivesmatter.png

    #LegalizeAwoo

    A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
    An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
    A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
    A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"


    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."

    "Curiosity is bad! It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed...and more importantly, it makes you poor!"
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,230 Arc User
    edited August 2018
    uh, i beg to differ...westboro baptist church, anyone?​​
    Most people would consider him at best a heretic, but David Koresh tried to pretend he was Christian.

    And that's the end of this tangent, please. -- StarSword-C
    Post edited by starswordc on
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,945 Arc User
    edited August 2018
    [Mod Hat] Okay, I'm trying to be very careful not to let this turn into a discussion on comparative religions because that's against the rules. I only brought this topic up because of the way Star Trek factions are used as allegory. [/Mod Hat]
    starkaos wrote: »
    starswordc wrote: »
    There's a better and more relevant analogy available: an American who "hates Muslims", except the only thing he actually knows about Islam is bin Laden and those nineteen petaQs who did the 9/11 attacks. He doesn't know that Islam has nearly as many denominations and sects as Christianity, he doesn't know that the Qur'an explicitly commands Muslims to PROTECT members of other organized religions from persecution, and he especially doesn't know (or at least really believe) that most Muslims can't stand those bomb-wearing lunatics any more than he can.

    Except that almost everyone treats Islam as a monolithic force instead of a group of religious factions that have different values and beliefs. Most people don't bother to learn the differences between the various Islam factions where there are moderate and radical factions.

    Which is exactly my point, Stark: the stereotype isn't true if you bother to look.
    jonsills wrote: »
    Starsword, I think your analogy is in error. Recall that Burnham did have some small previous exposure to Klingons - that's how she wound up in Sarek's care, after all.

    I'd liken it more to someone who developed an irrational hatred and fear of Muslims after having their home village destroyed and parents killed by some weird splinter group like al-Qaeda. Yes, you and I are well aware that they represent the values of Islam as well as some fellow standing on a street corner screaming about the pigeons in his brain represents the concept of government, but our hypothetical victim doesn't see it that way. Burnham's entire exposure to Klingons has been watching them kill people she cares about. Her reaction, while unfortunate, is understandable - and if she could ever find a Klink who actually lives up to the standards his people are supposed to care about, it might even be curable. (Sadly, I think the first one who ever existed was Worf...)

    So make that "parents killed on 9/11"; I thought about that but forgot to add it. Sue me.

    And that's not totally true: Kang, Kor, and Koloth displayed a modicum of respect for those standards while still being closer to the stereotypical Klingon and within the Empire. Martok, too. Even freaking Gowron had it in him to stop being a politician once in a while and do the right thing, reference "The House of Quark".
    azrael605 wrote: »
    Sounds like Dances with Wolves to me, which was filmed in my backyard, and with members of my family as extras. Starsword is also completely ignoring that Burnham fell in love with a Klingon.
    I'm not ignoring it. She didn't fall in love with a Klingon, she fell in love with a human who turned out to be a Klingon Manchurian agent. Voq ≠ Tyler even when they share the same body.
    azrael605 wrote: »
    He is also ignoring that we were literally told that Culper was coming back moments after the episode he was killed finished.
    Yes, we were told that. By Aaron Harberts, who over the course of the show's run displayed a track record of telling bald-faced lies to (fail hilariously to) obscure plot twists. It was the "John Harrison isn't Khan" thing all over again. So I don't believe him, and coming back as a "ghost in the Matrix" doesn't count; until I see a living carbon-based humanoid body with his face, he's Dead for Realsies.

    Coincidentally, CW's The 100 pulled the exact same stunt with a l*sbian couple about a year before DSC premiered. The backlash from "Clexagate" (hence, "Culbergate"; "Clexa" was the shipping nickname in question) may or may not have contributed to that network choosing to handle the later departure of Floriana Lima from Supergirl considerably differently (she was playing Alex Danvers' girlfriend but got a better offer from Netflix for a role on The Punisher). Apparently Harberts failed to compare notes with anyone.
    azrael605 wrote: »
    Besides which, being a LBGTQ character should never ever mean they can't be killed as part of the story, death is a part of life and nobody is immune.

    For myself watching Voqler kill Culper had me jumping out of my seat cursing, both because I seriously like Culper and Stamets and because I had been hoping that Voqler would be more successful in bridging the gap between Humans and Klingons.

    But for a minute lets say that Beverly Crusher had been killed that suddenly, would anything even similar to "culpergate" (idiotic overused nickname) have ever been heard of? If not why? Because Beverley is straight? Thats predjudice, and I for one am not going to even dignify it with consideration, any character, whether LBGTQ or Straight, of any color, is equal to all others and I reject any argument that any character or group of characters should be treated specially, all are equal, no one is off the target list.

    Here's why it matters (and this reply goes for @redvenge's post, as well). Hollywood already has a well-established pattern of killing off or otherwise tormenting LGBTQ and brown characters in preference to straight white characters. So is it really too much to ask that freaking Star Trek of all IPs break the mold and leave them alone for once? What Mr. Sherred was objecting to, why he didn't consider it "special treatment", was that straight couples have more fictional models for a normal, happy couple than they can shake a stick at, and nonstandard couples want to be able to see themselves in fiction, too. Note also that the time he wrote those reviews, it looked awfully like the show's straight couple was going to get a happily-ever-after (although that has since changed, what with Tyler getting sent off to be with the woman he perceives as his rapist for little more reason than because his body used to belong to a Klingon, and you can thank TNG through VOY for that lovely quasi-segregationist "stay with your kind!" message).

    TL;DR: is it too much to ask for Stamets and Culber to just be portrayed the way Keiko and Miles were on DS9, i.e. as a normal military family with normal military family problems (Stamets' mushroom weirdness notwithstanding)? Is there some writing rule I don't know about that everything has to be loaded down with "narrative tension"?
    "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"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 9,318 Arc User
    starswordc wrote: »
    azrael605 wrote: »
    He is also ignoring that we were literally told that Culper was coming back moments after the episode he was killed finished.
    Yes, we were told that. By Aaron Harberts, who over the course of the show's run displayed a track record of telling bald-faced lies to (fail hilariously to) obscure plot twists. It was the "John Harrison isn't Khan" thing all over again.
    Are the words of actor Wilson Cruz good enough?
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • talonxvtalonxv Member Posts: 4,245 Arc User
    At my request end thread and transmission(meaning close thread).
    afMSv4g.jpg
    Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!

    http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
  • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
    azrael605 wrote: »
    Seriously man do you even watch Star Trek seriously cuz nothing on Discovery is out of place with any previous series
    I never said anything was out of place.
    azrael605 wrote: »
    and Spock is Central to the f****** story of season 2 they flat-out stated that in the trailer the entire season is about Spock you cannot do a story about Spock without Spock so also since he has not appeared yet you have no idea how they're going to be riding him so claiming that you can predict it is just asinine
    You made my point for me. Spock is central to the story, instead of any other character that was created for TRIBBLE. Spock OVERSHADOWS their own characters, JUST LIKE YOU SAID.

    As for predicting how they are going to write him, executive producer Heather Kadin said "I think that like any brother or sister, there's love. There's deep wells of stuff. That's what's so great about exploring that relationship, is there's a lot of tricky stuff that we get to dig into." Sonequa Martin-Green said "We're certainly gonna see Spock and we're gonna be exploring those family dynamics," she said. "We're gonna see a lot between them." Finally, you have Kurtzman and his "mystery box" nonsense; he's going to "present a version of Spock that's both totally consistent with the Spock everyone knows but very, very different. And it's all gonna tie to how we sync up with canon."

    It sounds like a trainwreck in the making.
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 9,318 Arc User
    Red, you're making an awful lot of soup from one small bone. I suppose your apparent knee-jerk hatred of anything not "old Trek" (which from your postings seems to be defined as TNG, DS9, and maybe a little VOY - TOS isn't even on your radar, it seems) could thicken the broth a bit, but -

    ...how, exactly, does having the next season focus on this thing Spock's doing mean his character, who won't even be seen for a while, "overshadows" anyone else? And if you hate Disco as badly as you seem to, why would "overshadowing" it be bad from your POV?

    I honestly don't understand the thrust of this argument.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    starswordc wrote: »
    Here's why it matters (and this reply goes for @redvenge's post, as well). Hollywood already has a well-established pattern of killing off or otherwise tormenting LGBTQ and brown characters in preference to straight white characters. So is it really too much to ask that freaking Star Trek of all IPs break the mold and leave them alone for once? What Mr. Sherred was objecting to, why he didn't consider it "special treatment", was that straight couples have more fictional models for a normal, happy couple than they can shake a stick at, and nonstandard couples want to be able to see themselves in fiction, too.

    Ash narratively needed to kill somebody. That person had to be a major character. That character couldn't be a main character. That character had to leave an emotional resonance by their death. Culber is the only secondary character the show has had other than Cornwall up to this point.

    DSC does not lack for non-white actors. It dosn't have to lack non-straight characters either.
    Objecting to killing off Culber because he's brown is ridiculous as they aren't even a minority amongst the crew or main cast. Objecting to him being killed off because he's non-straight is only slightly less nonsensical because it's based on the assumption that DSC has now used up its quota of non-straight characters.

    DSC has no requirement to try right Hollywood's perceived wrongs. All works are perfectly able to stand apart in whatever number you wish to chose.

    Culber needed to be the one to die and the needs of the story come before any implications of how the story affects the recent American/Western film and TV industry.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


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

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    I suppose your apparent knee-jerk hatred of anything not "old Trek" (which from your postings seems to be defined as TNG, DS9, and maybe a little VOY - TOS isn't even on your radar, it seems) could thicken the broth a bit, but -
    Who said I liked "old Trek"?

    My issue is writing. There is significant bad writing across all of Trek. Star Trek: Enterprise is a dumpster fire for most of it's run. Star Trek: Discovery is, so far, a jumbled mess in need of serious direction in the writing room.
    jonsills wrote: »
    ...how, exactly, does having the next season focus on this thing Spock's doing mean his character, who won't even be seen for a while, "overshadows" anyone else?
    It's SPOCK. He's a major character, one who has appeared in several movies. He is a "big name star". If you make a school play and have George Clooney as a member of the cast, he is going to overshadow the kids in the play.

    For whatever reason, they want to explore why "Spock never talked about Burnham", which is stupid. Focus on Burnham. Or Saru. Or one of those other bridge officers with only a handful of speaking lines that I cannot remember the names of. Build up your own cast. Make them memorable. Give THEM the titular roles. This need to bring in "big name" characters and shove them into the "pivotal" role cheapens Star Trek: Discovery, especially since many of it's own characters are in dire need of expansion.
    jonsills wrote: »
    And if you hate Disco as badly as you seem to, why would "overshadowing" it be bad from your POV?

    I honestly don't understand the thrust of this argument.
    Who said I hated TRIBBLE?

    I hate bad writing. Star Trek: Discovery has sloppy writing. It is bad in places, but mostly sloppy. Star Trek: Discovery can improve, with more oversight and leadership in the writing room. I doubt that is going to happen, but I will continue to point out issues hoping they might improve.
Sign In or Register to comment.