Star Trek Discovery ***Season 3*** [** SPOILERS WITHIN **]

Goodshape

murpho999 wrote: »

No it's about having a mix.

If you don't see white straight males mostly being portrayed as bad and minorities being portrayed as all heroic as stereotyping and discriminating then we'll just leave it at that. To me it's pandering to political correctness and social justice warriors.

But please stop trying to make out that I just want to watch "good" white make characters , that's not my point at all.

That's fair enough. I was being deliberately silly.

But I think you're being unintentionally silly and have put yourself in a no-win situation, despite shifting the goal posts when it suits. There are straight male characters in Discovery. They might not be the ones you want or in the positions you want, but so what.

It's not the reason or an excuse for the bad writing.

Stark

pixelburp wrote:

Hence the similarities with TOS. Uhuru was there to be black, Stamets is there to be gay - at least the latter has a character and arc to call his own

I came to TOS late in life and was actually quite shocked at how small a role Uhuru played. You hear a lot about how much of a big deal it was to have her there, how much she did for representation etc. When you actually watch it, she's just there. Doesn't say much, doesn't do much.

pixelburp

Stark wrote: »

I came to TOS late in life and was actually quite shocked at how small a role Uhuru played. You hear a lot about how much of a big deal it was to have her there, how much she did for representation etc. When you actually watch it, she's just there. Doesn't say much, doesn't do much.

Oh totally: her, Sulu and Chekov had zero personality beyond what the actors themselves added (wasn't George Takei[*] a keen fencer and the only reason Sulu then appeared buckling his swash?). Apparently Nichols was ready to leave the show 'cos of that absent characterisation, thinking nobody cared for Uhura; supposedly a chance meeting with MLK tipped her off that fan-mail wasn't being sent on to her - that she was as popular as Captain Kirk himself.

Just for being there, being black and in a position of some authority. It must have been something astonishing for little black kids in America at the time, but as you say in retrospect the character herself is thin in actuality. Even the films did little to address that, unless you count her Fan Dane in Star Trek V as character development


[*] George Takei of course a gay man[**] himself, so without knowing his personal history too well, one wonders how in the closet he had to be back in the heyday of TOS. Being not just gay, but Asian during the '60s, having grown up during WW2 and lived in those Asian concentration camps. Yikes.

[**] Oh man, wasn't there a stink when Sulu in the reboot series was made gay himself, with husband and daughter? Seem to recall a mini "fan" meltdown there.

murpho999

Goodshape wrote: »

That's fair enough. I was being deliberately silly.

But I think you're being unintentionally silly and have put yourself in a no-win situation, despite shifting the goal posts when it suits. There are straight male characters in Discovery. They might not be the ones you want or in the positions you want, but so what.

It's not the reason or an excuse for the bad writing.

Well I'm glad we agree on the bad writing.:pac:

murpho999

pixelburp wrote: »

Many, but not all and not least in America where the argument could be made that is has gone backwards in recent years. LGBTQ rights is still a hot potato and active topic, with various efforts to either stymy or reduce rights afforded to gay people. Just to look at the current VP, an advocate of the whole "pray the gay away" treatment to "cure" homosexuality; or when Governor of Indiana and he obstructed a meaningful response to an AIDS epidemic. While IIRC the current administration in 2017 rolled back some key protections for LGBT people that were added during the previous President's run. IIRC there are active court cases about making discrimination based on orientation allowable, that could be the same as the above 2017 item though).

So TBH I wouldn't say that "prejudice is over" in the States - and let's not forget that's the primary audience for Discovery and most Trek. It's American pop culture for American social culture - international audiences second. Eastern European countries are showing strands of anti-gay legislation, with some national politicians demonising the community; while further afield you got horror shows like Chechnya where they throw accused homosexuals off rooftops.

So long ways to go really. And part of that battle is ... yeah, just adding normal gay characters in mass media (insofar as pertains to the episodes' content). Brushing teeth and generally being mundane. It sounds ludicrous and it kinda is, but that's what comes with progress.



They were there to be gay and normal. That's kinda the nub of it. That gay couples can be normal parts of dramatic fiction, and not something exotic or inherently tragic or "other". But, importantly, their characters were not defined by their sexuality either. It's all about normalisation, and not "othering" a community or people. Hence the similarities with TOS. Uhuru was there to be black, Stamets is there to be gay - at least the latter has a character and arc to call his own

edit: I'll be glad when we get another damn trailer, or the show actually starts - and we can have this debate ALLLLL over again

Fair enough you make very valid points. I hadn't thought of how social attitudes in America and other countries may still be prejudiced.

It's possible also for me that I want Star Trek to be a well written show with good dialogue , deep characters and great stories instead of the "dark" long story arc with annoying poorly written characters and for me with a particular political agenda.

If the show was better and more enjoyable then maybe I wouldn't notice or get annoyed by the other stuff as much.

Evade

pixelburp wrote: »

O(wasn't George Takei
[*] a keen fencer and the only reason Sulu then appeared buckling his swash?).

No, they originally had him using a katana but he lied and said he was a fencer because he thought was too stereotypical. Then he had to go out and learn some basic fencing.

murpho999

pixelburp wrote: »

Oh totally: her, Sulu and Chekov had zero personality beyond what the actors themselves added (wasn't George Takei[*] a keen fencer and the only reason Sulu then appeared buckling his swash?). Apparently Nichols was ready to leave the show 'cos of that absent characterisation, thinking nobody cared for Uhura; supposedly a chance meeting with MLK tipped her off that fan-mail wasn't being sent on to her - that she was as popular as Captain Kirk himself.

Just for being there, being black and in a position of some authority. It must have been something astonishing for little black kids in America at the time, but as you say in retrospect the character herself is thin in actuality. Even the films did little to address that, unless you count her Fan Dane in Star Trek V as character development


[*] George Takei of course a gay man[**] himself, so without knowing his personal history too well, one wonders how in the closet he had to be back in the heyday of TOS. Being not just gay, but Asian during the '60s, having grown up during WW2 and lived in those Asian concentration camps. Yikes.

[**] Oh man, wasn't there a stink when Sulu in the reboot series was made gay himself, with husband and daughter? Seem to recall a mini "fan" meltdown there.

At the time though was it not a breakthrough to show these people in positions of authority and responsibility?

I think the show really then really revolved around Kirk and Spock and bit of Bones and Scotty, the rest were just background.

I think George Takei only came out around 2005 or something so he was in the closet for a long time.

pixelburp

murpho999 wrote: »

Fair enough you make very valid points. I hadn't thought of how social attitudes in America and other countries may still be prejudiced.

It's possible also for me that I want Star Trek to be a well written show with good dialogue , deep characters and great stories instead of the "dark" long story arc with annoying poorly written characters and for me with a particular political agenda.

If the show was better and more enjoyable then maybe I wouldn't notice or get annoyed by the other stuff as much.

Oh I don't think there's anyone common to this forum who believes the new Trek series are flawless; the arguments have come down to degrees of forgiveness for those flaws. Ironically its in the inclusivity that I think the writing has been Good, insofar as it has been the most normal, least melodramatic aspect of the ensemble.

Well, before the death and resurrection of Culber but I loop back to my point about Season 1 being a horror show of shifting goalposts. Season 2 realising they should never have bumped him off & crudely retconned the murder.

Evade wrote: »

No, they originally had him using a katana but he lied and said he was a fencer because he thought was too stereotypical. Then he had to go out and learn some basic fencing.

Oh well that's an even better story TBH; thank god they didn't make Sulu a tap dancer, a classically trained pianist or something even harder to fake

Inviere

Stark wrote: »

I came to TOS late in life and was actually quite shocked at how small a role Uhuru played. You hear a lot about how much of a big deal it was to have her there, how much she did for representation etc. When you actually watch it, she's just there. Doesn't say much, doesn't do much.

Don't underestimate the significance of the chosen bridge crew back in the 60's, all working together, equally, as a united group:

Not just a woman, but a woman of colour on the bridge.
A Russian on the bridge.
An Asian on the bridge.
An alien on the bridge.

The message was clear, that putting our petty differences aside and working together was a way out for mankind. While today, some 60 years on, it may appear tokenistic...but it really wasn't, it was a HUGE statement to make. We shouldn't let the fog of time fuzzy the importance of the TOS crew. Ok sure, they weren't well developed....but this isn't the 1960's. There was likely only so much that could be achieved with the show back then. I'm sure every studio executive was a straight white male, so even getting the green light for the above actors was a success.

Discovery can't get a free pass on that point, and shouldn't either. There is NO excuse, for the show of this era, to have such terrible, one sided character development. It always comes back to this with Discovery - I do not give a frak what race, colour, creed, or sex the characters are....just develop them, that's all. Write engaging stories for the characters...it's that simple. The show has been MASSIVELY let down by the fractured and broken writing teams. It's borderline now whether it's even worth trying to salvage. I'll watch it, but am far from hopeful.

murpho999

pixelburp wrote: »

Oh I don't think there's anyone common to this forum who believes the new Trek series are flawless; the arguments have come down to degrees of forgiveness for those flaws. Ironically its in the inclusivity that I think the writing has been Good, insofar as it has been the most normal, least melodramatic aspect of the ensemble.

Well, before the death and resurrection of Culber but I loop back to my point about Season 1 being a horror show of shifting goalposts. Season 2 realising they should never have bumped him off & crudely retconned the murder.

I would go further than saying it's not flawless.

I don't think Picard or STD are worthy of having Star Trek in their name. They're just following the way of other TV shows with long and dark story arcs but without the vital part of good writing charm and good characters.

Justin Credible Darts

the only straight white male characters were lorca....not main cast and gone
Pike...the star of the show, and now gone.

In fact with poke gone, their best character, and hiring trans and non binary to tick boxesyou can bet the show will be even worse.

I will bet the first white straight male to be introduced will be cast in a "baddie" role.

Also Starring LeVar Burton

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

the only straight white male characters were lorca....not main cast and gone
Pike...the star of the show, and now gone.

In fact with poke gone, their best character, and hiring trans and non binary to tick boxesyou can bet the show will be even worse.

I will bet the first white straight male to be introduced will be cast in a "baddie" role.

Rawr

I'm curious to see how it will go with this 3rd Season. I've had plenty of reason so far to assume that I'll be disappointed. We've had 2 seasons, and I've disappointed twice so far. There have been glimmers of a good Trek show in some elements of Discovery, but these Secret Hideout folk have this bizarre knack of snatching failure from the jaws of potential success.

I've gone on and on in the past about how Michael Burnham could have worked if they had handled the idea better. How Tilly was my favourite character until they turned her into the cartoonish Jar Jar Binks of the franchise. How every little nugget of potential Trek gold got whittled away until all we were left with was a cheap bit jewellery you'd probably get at Argos.

But I live in some hope. Maybe, just maybe, they have learned. Maybe Season 3 will actually be good, maybe Michael will be written in a way so that I'll actually give a damn about her character arc, and maybe these non-binary characters will actually be good / interesting.

This is the question that I usually ask myself whenever an attribute of a character or actor is sung from the rooftops. "But, are they any good? Is this character any good? Is the actor good?" is what I usually ask. And I ask the same of these two new characters.

I often felt the same whenever there was a buzz about a new Doctor appearing in Doctor Who. "Oh my God! Will The Doctor be a woman? or gay? or (insert ethnicity here)?" Whenever all of that is happening I just ask: "Will The Doctor be any good?". That's all I ever really care about. Will they do a good job?

As a viewer and consumer of Trek, all I ever really want is good Trek to enjoy. Alas Secret Hideout appear to be unable to do this well and after experiencing 2 seasons of Discovery and Picard's season, I have little reason to believe that they'll do a good job this time.

I will however give Season 3 a chance, in the hope that they will...

pixelburp

What's a good start, is that season 3 feels like it could be a full, functional reboot of Discovery as a series. After 2 seasons of shuffles and messy rewrites the show needs consistency in one form or another.

If this far future setting is going to stick around then the prequel concept is gone, the prior two seasons of plot jettisoned in favour of what my guess will be a "reform the federation" story. Conceptually this comes off like a blank slate, if my guess is right. And if I'm right I'd argue Discovery deserves rating as a new series, the prior 2 seasons canned.

Justin Credible Darts

Season 3 will be the same
Burnham will completely dominate the show as if the show is all about just her, and not about the message of trek
Stamets will have some minor role to exploit the gay angle to tick those boxes strongly.
The new additions will play parts to tick them boxes, and whilst i have no objection in theory, it is like the character will be written for the actors, instead of the actors joining to play the parts. Actors with zero experience, hired because of their "differences" rather than their ability.


Women will dominate the show like they did in the admirals, captains, klingon leaders, and should any white straight male make an appearance other than being portrayed as an alien, we know what role he is getting.

The show is a complete cluster****, where the writing is abysmal, the characters are tokens of social lecturing, and scream of "look how pc we are" and the whole notion of actual trekdom completely lost on the writers.

Its not even trek but some pc advertisement that stinks in the way they have gone about it.

TheIrishGrover

Evade wrote: »

I also have a radical thought, maybe read the last two pages of the thread before you put too much straw in that man.

You are right. (That came across as smartarse but I actually genuinely mean you are correct). How can I say without having seen/read the thread first.

However I stand by my points.

i can only speak for myself. Everyone can only speak for themselves. But I enjoy Discovery. I will watch the next season with an open mind rather than pre-judging it based on assumptions made as the result of personal bias

I mean, in the post above: I agree that there is too much emphasis on Burnham. To the detriment of the show. She is actually one of the least interesting characters in the show and this would be my biggest criticism. And I have mentioned so in other posts.

But I NEVER thought they played the gay card/angle with Stamets. In what way? Because of the story-arc with his husband? Had it been a hetero couple would that have being playing the hetero card/agenda or would that have simply been a story arc along with everything else.

I will watch the new characters as they appear. I may like them, I may not. I thought the new engineer (Tig something) was hilarious and I hope they use her more in future (But not over-use).

I do not agree with forced diversity or forced proportional representation. I believe in the best person for the job. Sure, the cast is more diverse than other shows but I don't see a character there that would be better suited to a person of another race and/or gender. I mean I don't believe that their race/gender is actually detrimental to the portrayal of the character.

Do people have the same problem with Game of Thrones? most of the strongest characters are women with all the male parts "subservient"to various degrees. Especially as the series went on.

So I do hope they dial Burnham back a smidge (But I don't think they will) but I am still looking forward to season 3. I enjoy it. IN MY OPINION (Not fact) I think it's a very enjoyable slice of science fiction. I am just as much of a Trek fan as others and think it's just as Trek as all the others.

If people don't like it then that's fine. that is THEIR OPINION (Not fact). Simply don't watch it. This may very well be the last season which will please many. And displease many others. Going forward we will also have the Pike series. I'm sure there will be plenty to complain about that too (OMG, the Enterprise didn't look like that. Where are the skirts? Look at the technology! Timelines!!! Sux, already cancelled. etc. )

Imagine if they had a black man as a Captain on a Trek show!!!!

So, tldr: As a Star Trek fan, I have enjoyed Discovery and am looking forward to the next season. I will base my opinion on the episodes based on what I have seen and not pre-judge based on personal bias. I may like it, I may not but I will give every episode a chance.

TheValeyard

Less Burnham more of the other crew.

pixelburp

Is Burnham overused? Yes, undoubtedly and on that most can agree. Is it because she's black and a woman? Well that's just down to the relative biases and presumptions of the critic cos there's simply no way to (dis)prove such a subjective abstract as that. Not unless someone has some internal memos from the Writers Room, you can't possibly know what the intention is with her. Art is rarely linear,and Discovery has been far from a stable and consistent production.

Maybe folks need to watch more TV because what Discovery has IMO, and is common to American TV regardless of its lead, is Main Character Syndrome. Where the lead is either the least interesting or most annoying character in ostensibly their own tale. Or in the case of Discovery, Burnham is both those things.

Ockham's Razor usually comes down to contracts demanding a percentage presence (they can be down to whether someone speaks or not), or the difficulty in reorienting an entire show away from its central pillar. But because Burnham is black then there must be other, more conspiratorial reasons, here there have been some pointing to marketing as a smoking gun. As if trailers and promotions are somehow synchronised with the overall production. Actors like to waffle to justify their role beyond "I need to eat", their input only occasionally informs the scripts (for instance Dr who often takes its cues from the charisma and personality of its new actor)

jmcc

As a character, Burnham seems to be a cliche in that the character comes across as a normal person trying to be smart and failing badly. If you look at how smart people characters are written, they are either flawed super-villains or flawed people with a tragic backstory. Burnham is a Cliche 101 example of this kind of writing. The writing for Spock inspired kids in that logic was presented as being useful and could even solve problems. The character of Burnham seems to be an "issues" type character rather than some kind of genius. (It even brings the whole nature versus nurture argument about intelligence into the equation. Spock was half Human/half Vulcan.) The big flaw with STD is that the show isn't Star Trek and Burnham would have been just another redshirt if the show had decent writers. Instead, the whole thing is centered on a boring character and that sense of boredom permeates the whole show in a way that even highly expensive special effects couldn't cure. One of the interesting things about Spock's character compared to that of Burnham was that Spock was capable of surprising people with his reactions or comments. Burnham isn't. That's a far bigger problem for STD and the Pike series may attract more interest and get better audience figures. When that happens, STD can be cancelled.

Regards...jmcc

Justin Credible Darts

TheValeyard wrote: »

Less Burnham more of the other crew.

if you mentiuon the bizarre lack of white straight males, and make a valid but separate point that burnham sucks and completely dominates the show in the same post, then 2 and 2 becomes 5 and you will be seen as some sort of racist, homophobe etc., because burnham is black and female.


It will be assumed you dont like burnham and want her replaced with some white person.
Trek people who all love this free speech for all get very defensive if you knock the show or are over critical.


Just so people wont get on their high horse, remember I am speaking of the CHARACTER of Burnham not the actress.
She is badly written, dominates the show, and it feels like the rest of the crew are just there to make up the numbers, Its all burnhams world and they just live in it.


Next will come the "but is is suppose to be her show" I get that, but Picard does not dominate Picard as much as burnham dominates discovery.
Sisko, Janeway etc did not dominate their shows as much.


Still there will be someone quick to jump upon this

Rawr

jmcc wrote: »

As a character, Burnham seems to be a cliche in that the character comes across as a normal person trying to be smart and failing badly. If you look at how smart people characters are written, they are either flawed super-villains or flawed people with a tragic backstory. Burnham is a Cliche 101 example of this kind of writing. The writing for Spock inspired kids in that logic was presented as being useful and could even solve problems. The character of Burnham seems to be an "issues" type character rather than some kind of genius. (It even brings the whole nature versus nurture argument about intelligence into the equation. Spock was half Human/half Vulcan.) The big flaw with STD is that the show isn't Star Trek and Burnham would have been just another redshirt if the show had decent writers. Instead, the whole thing is centered on a boring character and that sense of boredom permeates the whole show in a way that even highly expensive special effects couldn't cure. One of the interesting things about Spock's character compared to that of Burnham was that Spock was capable of surprising people with his reactions or comments. Burnham isn't. That's a far bigger problem for STD and the Pike series may attract more interest and get better audience figures. When that happens, STD can be cancelled.

Regards...jmcc

The thing about Discovery and any potential cancellation is that since it's an exclusively streamed TV show the rules regarding renewal have a knack of being a bit different compared to broadcast TV.

Reinforcing this was Discovery being a launch exclusive for CBS All Access. These streaming services tend to have a need for flagship shows that they can promote as "An Original (Streaming Platform) Exclusive". Netflix and Prime do this all of the time, and a lot of it is done to win over and retain subscribers who have lot of options lately.

They'll likely try to run Discovery as long as possible to keep their Original Content list a full as possible with new episodes and content. I feel that was the point of the Short Treks. New stuff to pop up in the All Access home screen between seasons, to remind subscribers that they're (hopefully) getting their money's worth.

CBS will probably keep it going until it's too expensive to justify or have a suitable replacement, like the Pike show as you mentioned.

TheIrishGrover

murpho999 wrote: »

..... I just feel the show now has a political agenda which it didn't have before.....

I'm sorry, I was just scrolling back through this thread and found this.

Really?

Honestly. REALLY?

...... It will be assumed you dont like burnham and want her replaced with some white person.
Trek people who all love this free speech for all get very defensive if you knock the show or are over critical.


Just so people wont get on their high horse, remember I am speaking of the CHARACTER of Burnham not the actress.
She is badly written, dominates the show, and it feels like the rest of the crew are just there to make up the numbers, Its all burnhams world and they just live in it.


Next will come the "but is is suppose to be her show" I get that, but Picard does not dominate Picard as much as burnham dominates discovery.
Sisko, Janeway etc did not dominate their shows as much.


Still there will be someone quick to jump upon this

If you look back through any threads on Discovery you will see that the vast majority of the criticisms of it are the dominance of Butnham and the fact that many (including me) find her to be less interesting than many other characters.

Speaking as a white straight male. A middle-aged white straight male Trek fan I don't have any problem with the diversity on the show. Did it raise a few eyebrows initially? Certainly. But I find the characters much more engaging than the quite typical "Enterprise" series.

As long as the sole characteristic of the new characters (Who, bear in mind, we have never seen, don't know how much of a presence they will be on the show, don't even know their character names) is not solely about their gender/orientation then I'm interested to see some new blood on the show.

I never saw Stamets as a box-ticking exercise - Although he certainly could have been.

I do agree on one thing: Lorca is a loss. But then he was a loss when we found out about him being from that silly Alternative Universe. I lost interest in him as a character from then on anyway.

Just curious. And I swear, it's not a trap/trick question. Do you find any characters in particular that would be better suited as a white male?



(Actually that is a trap question because if you say Saru then it's pointless talking to ya )

(And another "Actually", since the AU is camper than the Eurovision Song Contest... And Discovery's Section 31 is the same - Another of my issues. MAYBE DS9's awesome Section 31 is actually from the AU..... Like AU Cartman was nice Anyway...)

Justin Credible Darts

I never wanted any of the characters to play a straight white male, I had no problem with the people chosen, my point people keep missing if they go on about representation, equality, diversity, my point is then why leave one group out.

I never said someone should be dumped to make room for another, although people are quick to wrongly assume, they see the words, white straight and male and it sends the pc people on high alert. As I said I like Stamets, and Ash, Saru I dont get the character, seems bland, and Tilly is just bloody annoying.
Maybe Saru has potential but judging by the writers I would not bank on that.

Put it this way, if I had asked why there was no gay cast members in enterprise, would my comments got the same responses ? Of course not
But asking why a particular group is omitted and they are out in force.

Then if you complain about the character of Burnham , people see black and female, add that to the question of white straight male, and right away people jump to the wrong conclusions and want to imply there is an agenda. Its the internet, people are looking non stop for things to be offended over.

In the end that says more about their mindset.

as for Lorca, he was decent, but thought Pike was the star of the show, and he will leave a huge hole in the show...oh wait, he is white, I am sure someone will try to insinuate some racial tones to that comment as well

Stark

Oh grow up will you. You sound like the person who's first to complain about "lefty liberals", "identity politics", "pc brigade", "blah blah" when minority groups complain about under-representation yet here you are crying because the many "white, male, straight" characters the show does have don't meet your demanding specifications.

Its the internet, people are looking non stop for things to be offended over.

Like being offended because there aren't "enough white, male, straight" characters?

It's funny how as soon as I heard there was going to be a non-binary character, I knew this thread was going to turn into a **** show of people getting offended while doing the usual tiresome thing of projecting that offence onto the people who are happy just to watch the show regardless of the cast makeup.

Stark

Stark wrote: »

Oh grow up will you. You sound like the person who's first to complain about "lefty liberals", "identity politics", "pc brigade", "blah blah" when minority groups complain about under-representation yet here you are crying because the many "white, male, straight" characters the show does have don't meet your demanding specifications.



Like being offended because there aren't "enough white, male, straight" characters?

Ignore him. He's a troll.

TheIrishGrover

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

I never wanted any of the characters to play a straight white male, I had no problem with the people chosen, my point people keep missing if they go on about representation, equality, diversity, my point is then why leave one group out.

I never said someone should be dumped to make room for another, although people are quick to wrongly assume, they see the words, white straight and male and it sends the pc people on high alert. As I said I like Stamets, and Ash, Saru I dont get the character, seems bland, and Tilly is just bloody annoying.
Maybe Saru has potential but judging by the writers I would not bank on that.

Put it this way, if I had asked why there was no gay cast members in enterprise, would my comments got the same responses ? Of course not
But asking why a particular group is omitted and they are out in force.

Then if you complain about the character of Burnham , people see black and female, add that to the question of white straight male, and right away people jump to the wrong conclusions and want to imply there is an agenda. Its the internet, people are looking non stop for things to be offended over.

In the end that says more about their mindset.

as for Lorca, he was decent, but thought Pike was the star of the show, and he will leave a huge hole in the show...oh wait, he is white, I am sure someone will try to insinuate some racial tones to that comment as well

My question was not a personal attack. I simply asked, in your opinion, was there a character that you thought would be better as a white straight male. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Mine is that I can't think of any. And some of that is down to the under-development of the secondary characters due to the over focus of the Burnham character.

People use the term "Triggered" about the supposed overly-sensitive nature of liberals but when someone looks for a genuine debate then it is taken as a personal attack.

Regarding the introduction of new regular characters into a show, I doubt there will be any major new characters introduced. I'm sure the newly announced characters will be used sparingly after an initial introduction. They made a big deal about the introduction of Tig whatshername as the engineer last season but I think that's more to do with the fact that she was higher profile and more known in the US

Justin Credible Darts

Stark wrote: »

Oh grow up will you. You sound like the person who's first to complain about "lefty liberals", "identity politics", "pc brigade", "blah blah" when minority groups complain about under-representation yet here you are crying because the many "white, male, straight" characters the show does have don't meet your demanding specifications.



Like being offended because there aren't "enough white, male, straight" characters?

It's funny how as soon as I heard there was going to be a non-binary character, I knew this thread was going to turn into a **** show of people getting offended while doing the usual tiresome thing of projecting that offence onto the people who are happy just to watch the show regardless of the cast makeup.

where have I complained about the addition of a non binary character....oh wait, I never complained about a non binary character on the show.


Why do you have to make up lies to complain about ?


Asking where a white straight male is na completely separate issue, but people like you try as always to merge the two and imply its about the non binary character.


Not only are YOU getting offended, but getting offended and crying about something I never said at all.


Show me where I posted i was against the addition of a non binary character, or a trans character, or a black person, or a gay person, etc.....you cant because it does not exist.....except in your head.

pixelburp

Unless some detailed marketing promos were released, the only new characters we can speculate on confidently are those from the trailer: we saw David Ajala (Manchester Black from Supergirl) who seemed to team up with Burnham (as presumably she arrives in the future separated from the Discovery) and the chap from that strange Federation room. I suspect the latter is just a Quest Giver character so nobody recurring while it's probably 50/50 if Ajala joins the crew. Might be simply a "local" who helps Disco find their way around this new political landscape. Someone cynical towards their chances of survival before coming around.

Justin Credible Darts

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

My question was not a personal attack. I simply asked, in your opinion, was there a character that you thought would be better as a white straight male. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Mine is that I can't think of any. And some of that is down to the under-development of the secondary characters due to the over focus of the Burnham character.

People use the term "Triggered" about the supposed overly-sensitive nature of liberals but when someone looks for a genuine debate then it is taken as a personal attack.

Regarding the introduction of new regular characters into a show, I doubt there will be any major new characters introduced. I'm sure the newly announced characters will be used sparingly after an initial introduction. They made a big deal about the introduction of Tig whatshername as the engineer last season but I think that's more to do with the fact that she was higher profile and more known in the US

I know it was not a personal attack, unlike some I dont get annoyed unless people are making false accusations like the previous poster.


I suspect the roles given to the non binary and transgender actors are just token roles, they already had a load of characters that were being underused, like Ash, the recent arrival of Nhan, although she might have been enterprise crew...not sure

Ariam and Delmar( I cannot think of her name off hand, the one with the implants) seem to be just there and offer nothing, not sure if that is intentional or just part of the manky writing that has engulfed the whole show. Saru bores me, Tilly is a pest, Stamets is possibly my favorite, along with l'rell the klingon

TheIrishGrover

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

I know it was a personal attack...

OK, well, if you took it as a personal attack then so be it. Any contrary opinion you consider a personal attack. I simply asked your opinion and gave mine which you were, of course, entitled to disagree with. So not interested in debating so I'm moving on.

pixelburp wrote:

I suspect the latter is just a Quest Giver character

Hah. Love that character description. "You must gather the shards of Kabhalath to reforge the Time Crystal so Michelle Yeoh can have her Section 31 spinoff"