Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
Star Trek
Byrne Robotics > Star Trek << Prev Page of 81 Next >>
Topic: STAR TREK: DISCOVERY - New TV Series Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 26288
Posted: 28 February 2019 at 8:40pm | IP Logged | 1 post reply

Star Wars
Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Hague
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 14 November 2006
Posts: 8236
Posted: 28 February 2019 at 9:31pm | IP Logged | 2 post reply

Victor, thank you. That was fun to write.

Paul, Greg's comments against DISCOVERY have not been occurring in a vacuum. He has gone on at length concerning the way in which "forced diversity" and liberal agendas have subverted a number of popular franchises and links to sites claiming this is some sort of coordinated conspiracy going back decades. He's cited THE ORVILLE as an example of "how to do diversity right," something which apparently involves people of color remaining as supporting characters and taking orders from good looking white people, right from the get-go. (Apparently bringing them in to take over the show in Season Two isn't sufficient...) 

In my earlier post, I characterized the echo chambers in which Greg tells us he finds spiritual comfort as racist in nature. I did not say that anyone who dislikes DISCOVERY is racist. My comments were specific to Greg and moreover, his slanted websites and unsubstantiated sources. I myself have seen four episodes the show and am not keen to continue with it for a number of reasons regarding the writing. 

For example, in episode three, the walls are leaking water and Michael asks her roommate what's going on. The roommate turns away, frightened, saying that if Michael doesn't know, she can't say anything about it. Next episode, everyone's chattering away about the spore drive as if it's last night's baseball scores. Also, in episode three, Michael will not serve under Lorca because she will not be party to the weaponization of science and turning Starfleet into a war machine. Lorca is able to convince her he is really all about exploration and wonder, earning her provisional respect. First thing next episode, he puts her in a lab and says, "Weaponize everything in here." Somehow this flies with Michael. The whole thing tends to play as a series of lesser Enterprise episodes from their Season Three. 

It's Greg's insistence that Marvel, Star Trek, Star Wars, and others have been taken captive by toxic liberals with evil diversity agendas that I question and his links to sites that go even further in their screeds against female stars and dark-skinned leads. It's his constant "Get Woke, Go Broke" drum-banging and bizarre analogy that diversity is a failed "transplant" that "the body of fandom" is rejecting that I find distasteful. I do ask that when the only thing that will pacify the haters is for people of color to be removed from center stage and an end be put to diverse casting, how can their position be anything but racist?


Edited by Brian Hague on 28 February 2019 at 9:37pm
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Victor Perez
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 November 2017
Location: United States
Posts: 81
Posted: 01 March 2019 at 1:32am | IP Logged | 3 post reply

Re: “Get Woke, Go Broke“

Ugh that is soooooo tired and pathetic. And probably fanned to the max whenever possible by Russian trolls and 4chan incels (who luckily couldn’t care less about us here).  

The absolute worst argument against Michael I have heard is “you didn’t see people of color in command roles on Starfleet ships in The Original Series and Discovery is supposed to take place BEFORE The Original Series so how is that possible to have such diversity on Starfleet ships in Discovery’s era?”  Ironic that this sad logic at least acknowledges the concept of progress over time...  but you don’t see people in a huff about weird cyborgs on the bridge of the Discovery for some strange reason....

Re: ,,,when you’re a dude, obsessing about udders and green milk

My bad punctuation.... the “when you’re a dude” was meant to modify “ranting about MarySues” not the udder obsession. :)



Edited by Victor Perez on 01 March 2019 at 1:33am
Back to Top profile | search
 
Rob Ocelot
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 December 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1094
Posted: 01 March 2019 at 8:04pm | IP Logged | 4 post reply

re: Diversity.

I don't have an issue with diversity, both as a concept and an ideal -- and in a show depicting a better future for the human race than the current track we seem to be on I'd say it's almost a manditory inclusion for the genre.   

Where I have a bone to pick is in the execution.  

We are currently in an era of what I call 'checklist television' -- whereby some committee has decided all the things the show has to include before a line of dialogue is written or even before they've worked out what the programme is actually about in the first place.   If you're wondering why a lot of television these days has terrible writing and aimless plots that are glacially dribbled out it's because these things were low priority at the bottom of the list (or didn't even blip on the list).   The casting choices tend to be reactionary and overcompensate for what was historically a lack of diversity in show business rather than demonstrating that things have evened and equalled out in the present (and extending that to our future).   

TOS made a point of not just showing a future where there's diversity, but also showing us a future where that diversity is so normal and commonplace that nobody stops to think, "gee, we live in really diverse times".   It just is.   Outside the show in the real world the casting of Ms. Nichols was making waves for good reason but within the context of the fictional world of STAR TREK they let the onscreen diversity speak for itself implicity... and it spoke volumes.

Nowadays, the show wants you know just how diversely diverse their casting choices are -- both inside the show and out.  The surest sign of a hack TV writer is clumsy dialogue that blatantly tells you "THIS IS MY STANCE ON THE ENVIRONMENT/RACE/WHATEVER" instead of something more subtle that lets the viewer draw their own conclusions.  The current STAR TREK writers room is chock full of these jokers.   There's only so much time in an hour of television and once you've put in the manditory effects/explosions, acknowledged all of the current sociopolictal movements and causes and dealt with your relationship drama you might actually have space for a story.   Maybe.


Edited by Rob Ocelot on 01 March 2019 at 8:06pm
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12849
Posted: 01 March 2019 at 8:40pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply


 QUOTE:
Outside the show in the real world the casting of Ms. Nichols was making waves for good reason but within the context of the fictional world of STAR TREK they let the onscreen diversity speak for itself implicity... and it spoke volumes.

Implicit.



 QUOTE:
Nowadays, the show wants you know just how diversely diverse their casting choices are -- both inside the show and out.  The surest sign of a hack TV writer is clumsy dialogue that blatantly tells you "THIS IS MY STANCE ON THE ENVIRONMENT/RACE/WHATEVER" instead of something more subtle that lets the viewer draw their own conclusions.

I've seen some people argue that THE ORVILLE does the latter, which is why it is superior to DISCOVERY. Even though the show is pretty unambiguous about its stance on same-sex relationships and explicitly condemns bigotry based on sexual orientation. The show's humanistic stance toward religion is fairly obvious too.

What I get from that is "Stuff I like does diversity right" and "Stuff I don't like does diversity wrong".


Back to Top profile | search
 
Steve De Young
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 April 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 3259
Posted: 01 March 2019 at 8:48pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

Yeah, Star Trek episodes have never been thinly-veiled allegories about race, sexuality, gender, the environment until DSC.

Bro, do you even Star Trek?

Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Hague
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 14 November 2006
Posts: 8236
Posted: 01 March 2019 at 11:16pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply

Rob, how do you tell a properly constructed program from one done improperly? Is it the race of the lead characters that lets you know things are probably way too P.C. for the show to be any good? Can you tell just by looking?

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Rob Ocelot
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 December 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1094
Posted: 01 March 2019 at 11:56pm | IP Logged | 8 post reply

Brian, it's too late in the evening for me to take your bait. :-)
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Rob Ocelot
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 December 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1094
Posted: 02 March 2019 at 12:17am | IP Logged | 9 post reply

I do find it interesting that two people within minutes of each other throw up the glaring exception from an episode of the mostly well-regarded third season.  

I swear, I heard a chorus of "Ackshully..." chiming in from the far reaches of the internet.  

Last I watched "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" none of the main cast/bridge crew even realized there was a difference between Cherons and seemed confused when Bele outlined the differences (much to his annoyance). That (non) reaction from the members of Starfleet was the point I was trying to make.   

I see that I will have to be less implicit in the future. :-)

Maybe we can try again and trot out some examples of specism/racism towards Spock from other Starfleet personnel.  "Balance of Terror", maybe?


Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Avatar
Robotmod

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 33078
Posted: 02 March 2019 at 12:53am | IP Logged | 10 post reply

 Rob Ocelot wrote:
We are currently in an era of what I call 'checklist television' -- whereby some committee has decided all the things the show has to include before a line of dialogue is written or even before they've worked out what the programme is actually about in the first place.  If you're wondering why a lot of television these days has terrible writing and aimless plots that are glacially dribbled out it's because these things were low priority at the bottom of the list (or didn't even blip on the list).   The casting choices tend to be reactionary and overcompensate for what was historically a lack of diversity in show business rather than demonstrating that things have evened and equalled out in the present (and extending that to our future).  

Don't know what television series you're watching, but that doesn't describe what I watch at all. In fact, I think this is hands down the best time for television in terms of story, character, actors and production.  Has been for over a decade.  I'd agree with what you write if it was only about network television.  That's the definition of checklist.  But that's decidedly not the case with the series I watch on FX, Netflix, Hulu, HBO, Showtime, Starz, BBCAmerica etc., etc.  I actually have a rather large backlist of series I want to check out across a broad spectrum of content providers if I could only find the time to do so.  

I really think it's an incredible generalization to state "a lot of television has terrible writing and aimless plots" these days if you didn't grow up with 70s procedural series and rote sitcoms all airing on the three network channels available to you.  It's the definition of "you don't know how good you've got it because you don't know how bad it was".   
Back to Top profile | search
 
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Avatar
Robotmod

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 33078
Posted: 02 March 2019 at 1:21am | IP Logged | 11 post reply

 Rob Ocelot wrote:
whereby some committee has decided all the things the show has to include before a line of dialogue is written or even before they've worked out what the programme is actually about in the first place.

This is an incredible misunderstanding of how television currently works.  Bibles are written for pitch meetings before a show is even picked up for a pilot let alone a series.  Character arcs for the first season, bios, a broad first season outline (often including how they may cliffhang the season) and, yes, a pilot episode which includes more than "a line of dialogue" written.  All completed before papers are signed for a pilot.  Now, yes, there are exceptions.  Some series are picked up without a pilot sight unseen.  But the exception does not prove the rule.  

Again, if you only want to talk about ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and the CW, then your argument may have some validity.  More and more those networks are creating series in-house to reap the benefits of ownership.  But let's be real: those networks have had a "checklist" mentality for decades.  It's nothing new nor revelatory.  What has changed is the creator-led model of the last decade or more where either director, actor, producer, writer or all of the above agree on a project with little to no interference from the studio that is fronting the money.  If you think those projects are slow, terribly written or have aimless plots, blame the production and not some element of diversity that you somehow think is slowing and damaging the entire product. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Avatar
Robotmod

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 33078
Posted: 02 March 2019 at 1:40am | IP Logged | 12 post reply

 Rob Ocelot wrote:
Last I watched "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" none of the main cast/bridge crew even realized there was a difference between Cherons and seemed confused when Bele outlined the differences (much to his annoyance). That (non) reaction from the members of Starfleet was the point I was trying to make.

Even as a kid in the 70s watching repeats of TOS and loving every minute of it, I knew what "Let This Be Your Last Battlefield" was supposed to represent.  Who really cares if the characters themselves were mostly clueless, it's what the viewer saw that made all the difference.  And it was blatant.  That was the case for most 3rd Season Trek episodes. 

TOS was fantastically allegorical.  Some of it was obvious.  Some was not.  There were some episodes in the first and second seasons that were every bit as ham-fisted as "Let This Be Your Last Battlefield" but they were the exception rather than the third season rule.  Even if you cut out the third season entirely, you can't get past it.  And TOS (as TWILIGHT ZONE before it) was the major exception on network television at the time.  You certainly can't uphold 60s, 70s and 80s network television in general as an example of a better time with little to no checklists on content.  C'mon. 
Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 81 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login