Slashdot Mirror
Star Trek Discovery Gets Delayed Again As Spock's Father Is Cast (hollywoodreporter.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Hollywood Reporter: CBS All Access' Star Trek: Discovery has been delayed again as the series continues casting. The revival for the streaming platform has cast James Frain as Spock's father, producer CBS Television Studios announced Wednesday, as sources confirm that the show's planned May debut has been pushed. "Production on Star Trek: Discovery begins next week. We love the cast, the scripts and are excited about the world the producers have created," reps for CBS All Access said in a statement. "This is an ambitious project; we will be flexible on a launch date if it's best for the show. We've said from the beginning it's more important to do this right than to do it fast. There is also added flexibility presenting on CBS All Access, which isn't beholden to seasonal premieres or launch windows." Frain will play Sarek, the famed father of Spock who was first introduced in the original Star Trek and who has made several appearances throughout the franchise's many incarnations over the past five decades. The CBS All Access show features the franchise's Enterprise, now known as the U.S.S. Discovery. The drama will introduce new characters seeking new worlds and civilizations while exploring the dramatic contemporary themes that have been a signature of the franchise since its inception in 1966. Star Trek: Discovery was originally scheduled to debut in January and was pushed back to May, with The Good Wife spinoff The Good Fight now set to be the first scripted offering on CBS All Access, the network's VOD platform. This marks the second delay for the series, which saw former showrunner Bryan Fuller step down to focus on his Starz drama American Gods.
> The CBS All Access show features the franchise's Enterprise, now known as the U.S.S. Discovery How can you call yourself the "Hollywood reporter" and get something so trivial wrong?
Pretty please.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Just how many 5-to-10 dollar-a-month streaming services do these content providers think the average demographic slice (in this case, I'm thinking 18-34 year-old males) is going to sign up for? In the first place, these guys aren't "content providers" any more than the ultra-rich are "job creators" -- CBS All Access and their ilk are simply middle men bundling/packaging content, no different than music publishers. The music industry is starting to show that people are no longer willing to pay for a full album to get a single song, and yet here's the TV industry trying to start a model to get you to buy an album (the streaming subscription service) rather than a single song (a particular series). These fractured/factionalized services might work for sports, where old content is almost valueless, but I don't see how forcing people to sign up for an ongoing subscription service in an age of binge-watching is going to work.
And as long as I'm ranting, can we please please please stop having spaceships with 15 and 20 foot ceilings and plumbing-free 12 foot wide hallways? Watch The Last Ship if you want to see what a hallway in a ship is supposed to look like.
I've never been a Star Trek fan, it's an ok (collection of) series and I enjoyed most of the movies but it never really grabbed me to the point where I'd make sure to watch every episode. But for some reason I really got into Enterprise. Until the time travel story line, yes. Time travel is just the next level of flashbacks and foreshadowing; a device that can tremendously enrich a story and even be a central part of it, but it is very hard to do this well, and in most cases it ends up getting botched or serves as a crutch for weak uninspired writers. Especially in case of the obligatory "Back to present day Earth" episode or even season that so many SF series seem to require.
As for Star Trek:SJW: that has the potential of being unintentionally hilarious. But hasn't the franchise always dealt with "dramatic contemporary themes", as TFA suggests?
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Star Trek has always been "SJW". Its vision of the future is idealized, mostly free from prejudice and highly progressive, mostly atheist in the Federation, and with a strong sense of fairness and social justice. Many, many episodes are based on some kind of prejudice or social injustice, and the members of Starfleet getting involved and resolving them.
For example, Data is a machine but has at least some of the rights afforded to other lifeforms, which he had to repeatedly fight for, awful SJWs that he and his friends and advocates were. There were numerous TOS episodes where they alluded to race relations. In The Drumhead a rabid right wing nut starts a McCarthyesq witch hunt for enemies of the federation, and Picard defends her victim's rights with an impassioned speech.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Shh...don't interrupt the hate train.
I loved Star Trek. TOS, TNG, you name it. Big time fan.
It all ended when they decided to "reboot" the show and give it the boot, literally so. Of course you can't really continue a show with actors that are either ancient, dead or both, and you cannot do the TNG-dance every other decade because, well, how far can technology advance before humans become fully redundant because technology literally has the ability from "poof - you're dead" to "poof - you're alive". Face it, watching a bunch of Qs meddling with time and space isn't really funny, nobody wants to watch a show consisting entirely of Mary Sues.
One Wesley was already more than anyone could stomach.
Maybe I'm also not the target audience, being old and no longer the target focus for movies. I haven't seen the last few and I most likely also won't see this one. Sorry for the nostalgic shit, but Kirk, Spock, Bones and Scotty are four old guys that are dead now. Ok, one is technically still alive, but you get the idea. If they want to rewind time and put the setting back into the 2200s, why not show the adventures of another crew? It could have been woven into the old stories of the Enterprise to make old fans happy, if only for the "oh I see what you did there!" effect, while effectively not really bothering any new fans who probably know nothing about the original show (and let's be honest here, the 60s TV show is cheesy as fuck by today's standards). That could have rebooted the franchise for sure.
What do we get instead? Well, basically what we got is that all we "knew", what has been established as canon and the stories that happened before, all that is simply tossed into the garbage can and you're expected to start over. And that's simply not working as well as it could. First, Star Trek is anything but unique today. It was in the 1960s, there was very little competition in the SciFi arena and it could easily gain a foothold, even with stories that were even for the time often sub par. If you want to succeed in the SciFi genre today, you have to pump a LOT of money to get noticed. That is of course easier if you can boast a known name, but if that name has been hollowed out as it has been here, you're basically trashing it. What they did was to throw away an existing fan base instead of building upon it. Because now you have to win us over again, there isn't anything in this Star Trek that I'd recognize anymore. But ok, fine, give me a story that I can relate to and believable characters.
And that's where it fails. Again, with new characters this could have worked. But if you reuse characters, people have expectations. You expect Kirk to be brave, cynical, able to make one of two faces and suck in his belly for at least 200 episodes. You expect a cold, logical Spock devoid of emotions. And if that expectations are not met, your reaction is that it's "wrong". Which is kinda sad because the characters aren't that bad at all. They just don't fit the boots they have been put into.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And here, I suspect, you hit the nail on the head - that not all "social justice" is equal.
A person may look at old Trek exploring themes of interracial relationships, homosexuality, racism, sexism, and say "Superb work. I'm delighted to see this being explored".
And yet, the same person may well turn around and say "Facebook allows for 71 genders - hm. This seems a little odd to me".
If it's the kind of social justice that explores the former issues, I'm sure many people will welcome it.
If it's the kind that explores the latter, I'm sure you will welcome it.
So will Sarek have the heart condition which forced him into retirement, or will he develop it later? He'll be in his late 80s or early 90s, young for a Vulcan.
The big difference is probably that one is what people are, while the other tends to fall into "what people feel like being today", especially the 'fluid' stuff.
If someone tells you these new model Bussard collectors glow blue and the impulse engine trails glow green, and you throw a fit due to wavelengths, that's pretty screwy on your part.
On the other hand, no matter how much some random captain demands his ship be treated like a Galaxy-class because that's what he feels it should be, It's *STILL* a rickety Miranda. And some folks take issue when told they're no longer allowed to point that out.
And yet, the same person may well turn around and say "Facebook allows for 71 genders - hm. This seems a little odd to me".
That's the kind of thing that Trek was great at forcing the viewer to question. They meet all these alien races, some of them androgynous, some of them with three or five or 71 genders, and the viewer accepts it because they are aliens. That acceptance and normalization of the concept then transfers to humans, if only a little.
There was an episode of TNG with an androgynous race where any kind of gender was seen as abhorrent, and of course Riker turned one of them female. There are also the Trill race, of which DS9's Dax was a member, where they often switch gender when changing hosts. I recall an episode of Enterprise where there was a three gender race too, with the third gender being treated as little more than a breeding animal.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If this is the same kind of horrid drek as the "reboot" universe (AKA, the Teen angst IN SPAAAACE universe), then again, hollywood DOES NOT UNDERSTAND.
Startrek was a huge success, because it preached a message of a non-militaristic, peaceful, and progressive future.
Look at the reboot movies-- Rigid militarism, politicians lying their fucking asses off and scheming to perform illegal acts, horrible writing to justify explosions-- horrid horrid drek.
The "Need" to "reboot" the series comes from some idiots in a board room feeling that the original message of the series was stilted, and not in line with modern audiences.
Guess what, the ORIGINAL series was considered "Unsuited for modern audiences" back in the 60s too! FOR THE SAME REASONS.
No, idiots in the board room-- it DOES NOT need more boobie time, more teen angst, bad drama, or more explosions. What it needs, is that original formula of "A better future than one ruled by horrible corporations, big money, and authoritarian government *IS* possible, and this is how it can happen".
If you fail to deliver that, you are not delivering star trek.
Oh shut up.
I figured they'd fuck it up. Star Trek: SJW
Star Trek has been pretty much the poster child for social justice issues since it's conception. It was a very explicit goal of Roddenberry. Martin Luther King Jr himself approved of the show. You might have heard of that chap.
If you think social justice has no place in Star Trek, then you haven't actually paid any attention, and seem to engage it on little more than the level of "herp derp space".
So please keep your silly, regressive non-social-justive crap out of Star Trek, and let it be true to the original vision. mmmkay?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You do know that there aren't really aliens right? Humans only have two genders (perhaps 3).
Jar-Jar Abrams cured me.
I dont have any interest it watching "GI-Joe in space"
not gonna bite. not a fucking chance. splintering networks and television so much with 93840348 different streaming services (nearly all requiring their own subscription) will destroy the medium, not make it better.
put the show on real television.. or at least the closest facsimile you have. in other words, cbs not cw or some piece of shit network nobody watches like the old upn (which didn't do 'enterprise' any favors).
if you don't, the show is obviously garbage, you don't really have faith in the show, in the writers, in the directors, in the cast.. you don't really have faith in the franchise that GR created, either.. as proven by your need to 'reboot' destroying more than just vulcan, but also much of star trek's rich history.
If you think that, you obviously don't understand what social justice actually is.
I'll catch the 1st episode but I don't have high hopes.
Social Justice is a movement by men dressed up as women trying to be feminists. It's all run by the homo mafia.
I've never been a Star Trek fan, it's an ok (collection of) series and I enjoyed most of the movies but it never really grabbed me to the point where I'd make sure to watch every episode. But for some reason I really got into Enterprise. Until the time travel story line, yes.
I also like Enterprise, especially for its "stuff isn't quite ready for space travel" and the Vulcan's "we have to help the poor earthlings and not let them hurt themselves as they venture out" approach. The time travel story line jumped the shark; and the alternate universe one, "In a Mirror, Darkly," involving the Tholian Web and some real promise. A ST:Empire with the Klingons as good guys had a lot of potential.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Bring back Mork from Ork!
You know that's what could be heard late night on the Enterprise
Does this mean they will have a non-binary android as a cast member?
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Men, women and hardressers?
Star Trek has always been "SJW".
Ah, but I don't ever recall hearing the phrase "check your privilege", do you? I don't recall anyone screaming in O'Brien's face that he was a racist as he struggled to deal with the fact that he was uncomfortable around Cardassians due to his experiences in the war. I don't recall Picard making all kinds of special allowances for Worf's behavior as a proud Klingon living in a society where Klingons are extremely rare and Klingon stereotypes are constantly bandied about--on the contrary, he often insisted that Worf completely set aside all cultural biases in the name of duty. I don't recall calls for safe spaces or neo-segregation. In fact, this was pushed back against numerous times, particularly in DS9.
And perhaps most illustrative of all, I really don't recall the leading males being demonized even if they exhibited aggressive sexual advances. Of course TOS leaps to mind, but I also recall an episode of ST:TNG where it's strongly implied that a woman who accuses Riker of attempted rape not only made it up, but is actually so self-delusional that she herself believes that that's what happened. Women can not only lie about sexual assault, but they can be completely self-delusional about it... and no one even bothered charging the man with sexual assault because there was no other evidence of it other than the woman's word. Yeah. So. Name me one SJW feminist who is OK with that.
I don't know or much care about how the right sloppily uses labels like "SJW". For the rest of us, centrists and egalitarian leftists alike, it indicates first and foremost the anti-egalitarian, pro-identity politics, victimhood-obsessed sections of the left.
And that was never what Star Trek was about.
It is not that I do not understand Star Trek's reflection on society, but if the writers are going to really lean in on contemporary issues are we going to have a safe space instead of a rec room? Are we going to have Star Fleet vessels issuing trigger warning as a hostile craft swoops in for the attack? The times we live in are absolutely whackadoodle I could see this happening as unintentional SJW propaganda.
I'm getting modded troll on my original post, and will probably get knocked down here to, but I don't really care. Let's see where my statements are in a year. If you reply to this please keep in mind that words hurt and can even qualify as physical assault. If you are going to say something mean please post a trigger warning first so I can get to my safe room.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Never understood how all those ships made noise in space or ended up in the same upright position.
That was TNG under Roddenberry's tenure and it was bad. Horribly bad. It was boring, badly written, badly acted, a bunch of robots nobody could relate to. In today's climate it would have been cancelled after three episodes. Then they marginalized Roddenberry with his hackneyed "vision" and it got better. It's still a mostly forgettable show that only ever rose above mediocrity when it dealt with human feelings and flaws, traits Roddenberry despised in his desire for an "idealized" mankind that had no humanity within.
"During San Diego Comic-Con, another teaser for the series was released — this one featuring the “test flight” of the U.S.S. Discovery, the space-traveling base of operations for the cast.
http://www.startrek.com/articl...
http://www.digitaltrends.com/m...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Oh, like one that has actual antimatter particles whirling around inside it, and possibly leaking deadly gamma rays wasn't edgy enough? ;)
but if the writers are going to really lean in on contemporary issues are we going to have a safe space instead of a rec room?
Are you calling Trump an SJW now?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
How do you think those categories get changed?
I'm in the minority where the time war and the Xindi stuff where my favorite parts of the show.
Startrek was a huge success, because it preached a message of a non-militaristic, peaceful, and progressive future... No, idiots in the board room-- it DOES NOT need more boobie time, more teen angst, bad drama, or more explosions. What it needs, is that original formula of "A better future than one ruled by horrible corporations, big money, and authoritarian government *IS* possible, and this is how it can happen".
You hear this sentiment very frequently these days, but it's only half true. Even if we limit ourselves for the moment to just TOS and TNG, and it's clear that not every episode had such hopeful social themes. I don't even think the majority of them did. What were the hopeful themes of "The Trouble with Tribbles" or "The Doomsday Machine" or "The Best of Both Worlds" or "All Good Things" or "Goddamnit, the Holodeck Is On the Fritz Again"? And sure, the Federation tried to be peaceful if possible but there were a hell of a lot of episodes (and movies) that involved military situations.
I agree that the upbeat and socially liberal tone is *a* defining characteristic of Star Trek, and one that was often sadly neglected in later efforts, but there was a hell of other ingredients in there including good old fashioned, episodic, golden age-inspired sci fi craziness.
Possibly nothing is more emblematic of this elusive mixture of classic action/adventure and poignant social commentary than Star Trek I and II. Roddenberry was forced out of the latter due to the former being a boring flop, and The Wrath of Khan went on to be what many people still consider to be the best Star Trek movie, even though the conflict with its villain is rather one-dimensional, with the only perhaps quasi-social commentary being Kirk coming to terms with his aging. What did Spock's poignant drama in that movie have to do with a utopian future? It was just drama. But that's ok. Star Trek always had regular character-driven dramas going on, too.
I'm no huge fan of the new movies, but it would be a catastrophe if the studios tried to pander to the hardcore fans by swinging too hard in the other direction. We need action and adventure and drama in the framework of this strangely optimistic crew and society. It's a sci fi drama, not a public service announcement.
In recent years, I actually think that Doctor Who has come closer to the moral optimism blended and adventurous spirit of TOS and TNG than anything else, though obviously it uses a freewheeling zaniness in lieu of Star Trek's semi-realism.
Star Trek also featured the ship and crew repeatedly fighting to save (helpless) life forms who were intelligent (or had the potential to become intelligent) from destruction if they could not sufficiently protect themselves.
Sound like any debate in modern society that you know of?
I've always found it funny that the liberals who wrote Star Trek seem to be blissfully unaware that so many of the arguments they make about protecting life in the show go against a core tenant of modern liberalism (that a women's "choice" is more important than protecting the life growing inside of her).
One of the reasons I myself am pro-life is from growing up watching Star Trek.
CBS All Access - the Motion Picture
Car Wrecks that move in Slow motion are all the rage these days..
I recall an episode of Enterprise where there was a three gender race too, with the third gender being treated as little more than a breeding animal.
Not a particularly good episode (but then again, that was par for the course with Enterprise) but the basic premise was pretty imaginative (although they chickened out and had the really interesting bit delivered through crappy expository dialogue: trying to emancipate the third-gender individual ultimately led to her suicide (I say "her" because they used a female actor and there was clear parallels to women's rights, and also because I can't bring myself to call a person "it") and a dressing down from the captain for the guy responsible (the engineer) pointing out that the species would go extinct if the third-genders weren't dropping babies all the time. The engineer even told the captain he was trying to do what the captain himself would have done, which led to his telling off being even worse.
It was a surprising turnaround for a Star Trek story to paint someone in the wrong for being (in effect) a "social justice warrior". Which is of course a stupid term, because while there are a number of people who genuinely go looking for causes to champion without thinking about what they're doing, most people labelled SJWs are not in that category.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
but if the writers are going to really lean in on contemporary issues are we going to have a safe space instead of a rec room?
Are you calling Trump an SJW now?
He wrote rec room, not padded room.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You do know that there aren't really aliens right? Humans only have two genders (perhaps 3).
That depends on what you mean by genders. I prefer the feminist usage of the term -- that gender are the social norms expected by society of people of a given biological sex. We can extend that to the idea that we have created additional expected norms for non-heterosexuals -- for example, the highly camp persona typified by the Rocky Horror Picture Show could be considered a social construct that we apply to homosexual males, even though it restricts and incorrectly represents the population, and is thus a new "gender".
The point of the feminist view of "gender" is that it was a damaging thing, and the notion of "degendering society" was born. The camp-gay gender arose as gay people were being rejected by traditional gender views; by creating a new and very different identity, they distanced themselves from gender notions that rejected them. It's all summed up by "we're here, we're queer" -- i.e. your rejection of us is irrelevant, which was what was needed at the time. However, as society has become increasingly more tolerant, having a gender construct for homosexuals has become increasingly irrelevant. I've met plenty of camp people who are straight and plenty of gay people who don't behave any differently from the average straight person. And yet, there now seems to be pressure from the gender stereotype that gay people should act a particular way. And people who don't conform to that gender stereotype are now trying to define new genders that more closely define their personal inclinations, and we're getting a constant increase in the number of "genders".
How about we get back to degendering, stop trying to put people in boxes and just get on with treating everyone as simply "human"?
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Social justice is a term dating to the 1840s. The concept is to treat everyone fairly. There is no one group that has a monopoly on the term, and while there a few hypocrites who use it to do down others (completely missing the point), that does not invalidate the basic idea that social justice is a Good Thing.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
And yet, the same person may well turn around and say "Facebook allows for 71 genders - hm. This seems a little odd to me".
Non-SJW liberals/leftists shouldn't be aggrieved by what people choose to self-identify as, so long as they don't demand special rights or considerations that others don't have access to. Egalitarian means egalitarian.
If you think that the voluntary self-identifications and hobbies of the Tumblrsphere are a problem with today's society, or if you believe that what is in between a person's legs should define them socially, that's a socially conservative stance to take (and one that I'm against.) But if, for example, you're against totalitarian language police (trying to *force* certain pronouns) or think that people should be able to openly express sexual and romantic preferences, that's mostly justifiable.
Could be worse: Star Trek: Voyager was effectively "Gilligan's Isle" in space. Without Ginger OR Mary-Ann
There's social justice as in 'don't discriminate based on the color of one's skin,' then there's social justice as in 'tumblr thinks mayonnaise is a gender.'
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Yes, but Seven of Nine had the collective memories of both of them.
He wrote rec room, not padded room.
ITYM "the whitehouse".
WTF.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
What part of IDIC do you not understand?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"Yes, but Seven of Nine had the collective mammaries of both of them" Fixed. :-)
They've already done three genders and post-gender so why the fuck not 71 genders.
I didn't hate the time war. I thought it was interesting, albeit I wish we had seen some of it in other shows. The Xindi stuff was ok, but a bit long.
Nobody gives a damn about star dreck any more.
How ya like dat?
Stark Trek has always been socially progressive, but that's NOT the same as SJW.
Socially progressive = being tolerant of all races, genders, creeds, etc.
SJW = lionizing certain races, creeds, genders while villainizing others.
And, sadly, ST:Discovery has all the earmarks of an SJW smug-fest. Notice how there isn't a single straight white (human) male in the crew? Nope, but you can bet they'll get plenty of the villain roles. In SJW-world, straight white males are ALWAYS the villains now.
This is especially disappointing as Bryan Fuller was once one of the most talented writers and showrunners in Hollywood. His Trek writing cred was top-notch. And most of his earlier shows ("Dead Like Me," "Wonderfalls" etc.) were fucking brilliant. But, like milk, every creative talent comes with an expiration date. And I think Fuller spoiled some time ago. Unlike his early works, this whole shows reeks of SJW fart-sniffing in its most smug and bigoted form. It's sad to see that come from Fuller, of all people.
It's possible that the show could still surprise us. But all signs right now point to a new Star Trek universe where the sign "Straight White Males Need Not Apply" is placed clearly in the window.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Or a laugh track... or anything to laugh it.
Man it was a dire series.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
With medical degrees, in fashion,from France... Oops, this is the wrong forum. Could someone point out where the Portal humor forum is?
Yeah, a Borg with breasts and so prominent at that never made sense to me. Especially since Jeri Ryan's breasts weren't as prominent when she was on "Leverage". They could have gone with a Borgs want to be the best so she had to have the best breasts bit, but the matter was never addressed, ever.
Since CBS took a gigantic steaming civil-lawsuit dump all over Axanar , I really couldn't give a damn about any of their imitation Star Trek-flavored crap, especially since I'd have to pay to see it in the first place -- and it's not even going to be worth pirating so far as I'm concerned. Likewise JJA's Star Trek-flavored 'movies'.
That reminds me of the situation regarding "racism" and to some extent "nukes". Racism used to be of the sense that my race is better than your race, but now a situation has developed that can still legitimately be called racism where people think all races are equal but if you aren't behaving according to stereotypical norms for your race, then you are bad and maybe an Uncle Tom. Both nukes and racism are referred to not for their effects but for their scariness.
Anthony Rapp seems to be playing a white, human male. The actor is Christian too. Doug Jones is white and male, but apparently not human. I haven't read anything about those characters being gay either.
To be honest, it seems like you are pre-judging this a lot. I can bet there will be lots of white male (human) villains? That's a reach, chances are most of them will be aliens as is usual in Trek.
There is no agreed definition of SJW, it's basically "someone I disagree with and villainize to make myself feel better".
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Anthony Rapp is playing a gay character and Doug Jones is going to be buried under heavy prosthetics and makeup. There are no straight, white human males in the main crew who've been announced.
Doctor Who comes the closest to Qs messing with the universe. The Doctor frequently illustrates that he is hiding the extent of his power to manipulate the situation through things similar to hypnosis that the Master openly used in the classic series, but the seventh Doctor especially illustrated that he could do too.
I am all for equal rights. However, if you identify as dragonkin and want to have sex with dragons, then I can choose to assume you are mentally challenged. I don't have to accept every single equal human rights measure, just the ones that are within logical reasoning to be correct.
Because, if I remember correctly, Sarek was opposed to Spock joining Starfleet. Many things can be said about Vulcans, but I don't believe "hypocrite" is one of them. Although, I suppose he could have opposed Spock's joining because he, himself, had a bad experience as a member of Starfleet.
I couldn't believe it when I read it.
Or in short, we're all becoming more closed-minded and insular; trying to invent a tight, uniform group identity and to put up hard borders (build walls?) between our chosen "tribes". This is that good old-fashioned "nationalism" that messed up the world so badly in the mid-20th century.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Also reversed genders:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
But but what of n i g g e r monkeys like you Coren22 http://twicsy.com/u/Coren22/ ? If you reply, please, no baboon grunts or chimpanzee chimpouts!
im not human . I identify as a meat popsicle
canon: (noun)
What some writer decides today what happened in a fictitious past. This is primarily caused by s/he wanting a personal thumbprint on a character set combined with an inability to imagine extensions to current story lines. In most cases this leads to conflict in story lines that produce confusion in the readership and at times actual outrage at the bastardization and extreme vandalism of admired characters (see Green Lantern).
Not all of us of course. Mainly those who unreservedly supported either of the two major candidates. I don't know the breakdown among those who supported the other candidates or like me didn't support any.
Yeah, a Borg with breasts and so prominent at that never made sense to me. Especially since Jeri Ryan's breasts weren't as prominent when she was on "Leverage". They could have gone with a Borgs want to be the best so she had to have the best breasts bit, but the matter was never addressed, ever.
it was purely a strategic matter. if you see a regular Borg lurching towards you, you'd run. most guys confronted with Seven of Nine would at least pause for a few seconds to ogle.. long enough for the nanoprobes to come out.
of her arm extension. i know what you were thinking. don't go there.
IDIC originated in a lame marketing ploy by Roddenberry to sell tchotchkes. It was never used as a symbol of diversity, at best it represented Vulcan nationalism, and an overtly racist Vulcan captain even went so far as to wear IDIC to symbolize his belief in Vulcan supremacy. IDIC ultimately became the Vulcan swastika.
I also like Enterprise, especially for its "stuff isn't quite ready for space travel" and the Vulcan's "we have to help the poor earthlings and not let them hurt themselves as they venture out" approach. The time travel story line jumped the shark; and the alternate universe one, "In a Mirror, Darkly," involving the Tholian Web and some real promise. A ST:Empire with the Klingons as good guys had a lot of potential.
I liked it because they had "marines" as boarding parties.
You do know that there aren't really aliens right? Humans only have two genders (perhaps 3).
They aren't really aliens because they are all the same species. How that was suppose to be remotely real I have no idea and it among other things makes Star Trek fantasy instead of science fiction. Babylon 5 even teased Star Trek about it.
I recall an episode of Enterprise where there was a three gender race too, with the third gender being treated as little more than a breeding animal.
It was too bad they did not take that to the extreme (or not extreme since it actually exists) that Niven did with the Puppeteers.
I also like Enterprise, especially for its "stuff isn't quite ready for space travel" and the Vulcan's "we have to help the poor earthlings and not let them hurt themselves as they venture out" approach. The time travel story line jumped the shark; and the alternate universe one, "In a Mirror, Darkly," involving the Tholian Web and some real promise. A ST:Empire with the Klingons as good guys had a lot of potential.
I liked it because they had "marines" as boarding parties.
Yes, that added a bit of nautical authenticity.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Not all of us of course. Mainly those who unreservedly supported either of the two major candidates. I don't know the breakdown among those who supported the other candidates or like me didn't support any.
At the risk of starting a fight, isn't it closed-minded to forget that there are other countries out there, and that your presidential race wasn't a global election...?
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
I liked it because they had "marines" as boarding parties.
Yes, that added a bit of nautical authenticity.
It was more because it is such an obvious thing to have for both attack and defense. Of course using them for attack will be problematical later when shields become ubiquitous preventing transporters from being used but then how is it that they are only used for defense under the same conditions which would allow attack? I liked Enterprise *more* than most of the other series.
I write it up as just another unrealistically idealistic concept in the Star Trek universe along with the usual collection of plot holes and assumptions which make most episodes poor science fiction at best.
I'm going to say this: Enterprise is hands down the best Star Trek series of all, even betterthan (but only just) TOS.
The Next Generation was bad scripts, random plots, and bad actors (and yes I'm including Patrick Stewart). The two others that followed were quite simply jokes. The only decent characters between TOS and Enterprise were an android and a comedian.
Enterprise had a purpose, a back story, evolution, consistency, sustainable discovery, no creators' pets, treated race naturally instead of stuffing it in your face, gave the Vulcans balls, really did go where (and how) no man had gone before.
IMHO anyone who doesn't see all those glaringly obvious attributes comes across not only as a SCi-Fi ignoramus but completely asinine.
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
Forgetfulness is not necessarily closed-minded, but I have a sentiment similar to yours in that what happens here does not just affect this country and that people taking interest in the elections of other countries shouldn't be called meddling, but a reasonable looking after interests. So when Obama contributes to an Israeli campaign, I don't talk of interference, but if doing so was really in US interests, and whatever Russia did or did not do isn't meddling, though the question of legality is there, but then breaking the law is not necessarily wrong.
Besides, if they wanted boobage, they could introduce a new character. Two of Double-D. . .