"Absolutely. We need a token redshirt that will often say "oh hell no", "I didn't sign up fo dis shiet" and in general dispense hilarious black-people jokes. I mean, we're not gonna make the black guy the captain just for the sake of diversity, that would be racist. Also, the gay dude will be the most fabulous, frollicking elfling on the show."

 

It needs stating because there hasn't been a gay character on a Star Trek show before.

 

If you're creating a character and making them gay just for the sake of being gay, that's awful.

 

No, its not. Being gay isn't an awful thing.

 

Yeah, because that's clearly what Odran was implying instead of "blatant pandering for its own sake often coincides with shitty characterization, and that's damaging".

 

I believe Jadzia Dax falls into the Jack Harkness realm of polysexual- "Can it consent? Well, hook me up!" That the show runners wouldn't risk American sensibilities by showing it up front on screen- men kissing men in the first episode like Torchwood did - doesn't mean it wasn't there.

 

Bravo! My post wasn't even that long and you completely misunderstood it.

I said nothing of the sort. I said, and fairly obviously implied, that if you write a character to be gay, if you make them homosexual, solely so that they would stand out for their sexuality, in an effort to pander to a (very vocal) minority, you're doing it wrong. You are, in fact, doing something quite hideous and awful. You're actually belittling the character, because according to you nothing else should be noteworthy about them except their sexuality.

 

Why are you assuming that that is what's going to happen though?

 

Because of this:

They present it like it's part of some predetermined casting quota, like it's something to be touted as an achievement, rather than just a single part of some character's background. They haven't said anything else about whomever that character might be. All that matters is that they're gay. That's it.

 

I kinda think they haven't said anything else because they don't want spoilers. I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt, even if you wont.

 

Im confused by the setting. Are each of these "serializations" going to have different casts?

 

No one knows anything about subsequent seasons. Just rumors.

Here's hoping for 29th century Federation Timeship Discovery, so they really can do seamless transitions to other Trek eras and have room for some lighthearted episodes.

 

So, assuming you read SF books, you prefer short story collections over novels which have the time to explore ideas, environments and plots to their fullest potential?

You quote shows here which weren't awful because of some Arc meltdown but because *some* were plain crap(Helix,Fallen Skies) by itself or the so called Arc was never really the driving force behind them for the producers(I had that impression with Battlestar Galactica and Lost, both were character driven and melodrama. More about social fiction). Haven't really watched Fringe. Dark Matter is more a relatively cheaply produced guilty pleasure SF show with no real coherent plot worth talking about.

I actually enjoyed Enterprise but it took some time to develop its charm(characters+title song). DS9 also worked which had a long and short Arc+episodic content. You seem to see them as episodic which doesn't do them justice.

There are so many shows with an Arc but then fail due decisions by the TV Studio which might be your true argument. Wayward Pines was really nice for the first season until the end. I didn't even bother with S2 anymore because that felt like a money grab to me.

Then there are many shows outside the SF genre with an Arc which just worked.

And why are the small multi-episodic episodes in TNG and SG1 the highlights of the show?

 

I wouldn't go that far, given that episodic doesn't equate to truncated plot or minimal character growth. But I'd argue that contained standalone sci-fi novels and/or novels that exist within the same universe with the same/different characters encountering episodic unrelated scenarios with each story are far superior to multi-novel sci-fi epics. There are hundreds of amazing authors who write contained episodic sci-fi: Heinlein, Asimov, CJ Cherryh, Louis McMaster Bujold, Sharon Lee+Steve Miller... I can go on. Who is on the epic saga side? Herbert? Maybe Orson Scott Card.... Maybe?

They were absolutely awful because of arc meltdowns. They were awful for a lot of other reasons too.

Maybe we're just working under different definitions of episodic.

And I 100% agree with that assesment. I'm not arguing against long arcs outside of the sci-fi genre. I'm not even really arguing against long arcs outside of Trek.

To my mind, they aren't. Not even close.

Let's just agree that we have different opinions and try to keep that reddit superiority to a minimum.

 

Official series trailer unveiled at CC.

In other news, Sonequa Martin Green's main char Michael Burnham (why they decided to name her Michael I don't care to ponder) is going to be Spock's older half-sister, i.e. the fully human daughter of Amanda Grayson. I wonder if they'll cast a child Spock. That would be neat.

Also Trek team heard you liked combadges, girl. So here's some combadges on literally fucking everything.

 

I find it odd that CBS is not bothering to build hype during the week leading up to the premiere. Ads are virtually nonexistent. 1st ep is not being shown to critics. Reviews from the local studio premiere have been embargoed.

It's like CBS wants their streaming service to fail.

 

Literally only heard about this series because people were complaining that it was only on the CBS streaming service.

 

This does not make me optimistic for the quality of the new Trek show either. Lack of marketing or support for what should be a huge audience draw could be a warning sign that they expect it to bomb hard.

 

Yeah. Pretty much the only thing keeping my expectations from bottoming out is the twitter reactions from the fans invited to see the local premiere. They've been pretty positive so far.

That said, even if Sunday rolls around and it's awesome, I'm still not sure I'll be willing to pay another 60 bucks a year for one fucking show.

 

Watched the first two eps of Discovery.

They weren't bad. But they weren't really good either. Essentially just Kelvin-Universe-esque mini films that were all about visuals, nostalgia callbacks, and highlighting Martin-Green's hefty dramatic acting chops.

No camp, no silly scientific phenomena, no lofty egalitarian ideals... nothing in it that really made me think "This is Star Trek."

Some pretty shit dialogue here and there as well.