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.
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.
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.
Jar-Jar Abrams cured me.
I dont have any interest it watching "GI-Joe in space"
I'll catch the 1st episode but I don't have high hopes.
Does this mean they will have a non-binary android as a cast member?
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
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.
"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
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'
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'
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
"Yes, but Seven of Nine had the collective mammaries of both of them" Fixed. :-)
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.