Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

1…1920222425…32

Comments

  • #632
    breezy1985
    Registered Users Posts: 24,347 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Rawr wrote: »
    The Earth / Federation Utopia of the TNG-era was something that was referenced a lot, but rarely explained too well. They painted a very warm picture of a society where racism, sexism, and other societal ills are mostly gone, and that the only failings of humanity were individual to each person. I had always wondered how this cash-less society worked and how ordinary civilians were motivated to work at all, given that almost all needs were given for free.

    Except for wherever Yar grew up spending her life running from rape gangs.


  • #633
    Rawr
    Registered Users Posts: 3,744 ✭✭✭Rawr


    breezy1985 wrote: »
    Except for wherever Yar grew up spending her life running from rape gangs.

    Wasn't Turkana IV an old United Earth colony that somehow descended into civil war and then declared independence from the Federation?

    I feel they were using that as a bit of a juxtaposition to compare how great things were in the Federation, to how badly things could go if you let them. Would have been interesting to see what actually led to things getting so bad on pre-Independence Turkana IV.


  • #634
    breezy1985
    Registered Users Posts: 24,347 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Rawr wrote: »
    Wasn't Turkana IV an old United Earth colony that somehow descended into civil war and then declared independence from the Federation?

    I feel they were using that as a bit of a juxtaposition to compare how great things were in the Federation, to how badly things could go if you let them. Would have been interesting to see what actually led to things getting so bad on pre-Independence Turkana IV.

    Maybe they have the "evil gene" like the mirror universe people and Hugo Simpson


  • #635
    FunLover18
    Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    pah wrote: »
    Indeed, something to aspire to for the young female viewers.

    https://twitter.com/sarahisnothere/status/1332455919700078592?s=19

    This applies to the shows they watch as well, representation is important and it doesn't have to be about aspiration. And let's not forget that obesity and body shape isn't always a choice, genetics and metabolism come into it as well.


  • #636
    breezy1985
    Registered Users Posts: 24,347 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    FunLover18 wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/sarahisnothere/status/1332455919700078592?s=19

    This applies to the shows they watch as well, representation is important and it doesn't have to be about aspiration. And let's not forget that obesity and body shape isn't always a choice, genetics and metabolism come into it as well.

    What annoyed me about Tilly was the show tried to bask in the glory of having a character Tillys size but then wrote her as insecure and unfit.

    If you want to show you don't need to be stick thin to be in starfleet then show the bigger characters as just as fit and strong as everyone else and not having he rout of breath all the time.
    I hate when people assume I am not as fit and strong as my tall skinny friends but all Tilly does is reinforces that stereotype


  • Advertisement
  • #637
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Originally Posted by Rawr View Post
    The Earth / Federation Utopia of the TNG-era was something that was referenced a lot, but rarely explained too well. They painted a very warm picture of a society where racism, sexism, and other societal ills are mostly gone, and that the only failings of humanity were individual to each person. I had always wondered how this cash-less society worked and how ordinary civilians were motivated to work at all, given that almost all needs were given for free.

    I often wondered how the starlet people paid quark for the drinks and stuff


  • #638
    Evade
    Registered Users Posts: 6,723 ✭✭✭Evade


    Banana Republic 1 wrote: »
    I often wondered how the starlet people paid quark for the drinks and stuff
    Quid pro quo for waived service/repair costs etc. Sisko brings it up at one point, I think it's when Quark sort of sells weapons from his holosuites.


  • #639
    Bobtheman
    Registered Users Posts: 2,640 ✭✭✭Bobtheman


    Rawr wrote: »
    The Earth / Federation Utopia of the TNG-era was something that was referenced a lot, but rarely explained too well. They painted a very warm picture of a society where racism, sexism, and other societal ills are mostly gone, and that the only failings of humanity were individual to each person. I had always wondered how this cash-less society worked and how ordinary civilians were motivated to work at all, given that almost all needs were given for free.

    The main point though, is that TNG-era Federation worlds were wonderful & safe and that any conflict with the Borg or Dominion could have been seen as an effort to defend that way of life from a cold and unforgiving Galaxy. There was a slight sense of that being lost when Betazed fell to the Dominion. We never see anything of that occupation (beyond expanded universe novels) but the idea that the brutal oppression of Dominion control was brought close to "home" in that way, made the likes of the Dominion War felt like a despite fight to hold onto a brighter future.

    As dark as DS9 got, I felt that Star Trek's usual optimism was still in the background and that much of the effort of the characters there was to try and bring that optimism to a war-torn part of the galaxy, while showing us how hard it can be to be optimistic in those kinds of situations.

    I would agree that there are only so many different ways to do the TOS/TNG format before you end up repeating yourself. DS9 and VOY were interesting ways to re-imagine that and ENT was essentiually a re-skin of the older concept.

    Discovery is a different concept too, as is Picard. Both on their own are actually pretty good ideas on paper, and may have actually made for excellent Trek if they hadn't been produced by talent-less hacks.

    I think the voyager concept was good just badly executed. The characters were badly designed and badly acted. Janeway and the half Klingon were about the only ones capable of subtly. It also didnt use any real story arcs .I remember the DS9 creators deciding about season 4 that they were not going to get any more ratings so to start the story arc of the dominion. Ds9 was blessed with great actors and great background stories. The man who thought nelix or its actor was any good should rot in hell.
    Year of hell was where Voyager should have been. That story arc. The Maqui vs federation storyline was never properly used


  • #640
    Bobtheman
    Registered Users Posts: 2,640 ✭✭✭Bobtheman


    breezy1985 wrote: »
    What annoyed me about Tilly was the show tried to bask in the glory of having a character Tillys size but then wrote her as insecure and unfit.

    If you want to show you don't need to be stick thin to be in starfleet then show the bigger characters as just as fit and strong as everyone else and not having he rout of breath all the time.
    I hate when people assume I am not as fit and strong as my tall skinny friends but all Tilly does is reinforces that stereotype

    I dont fully agree. Most of the Discovery Characters display doubt and insecurity in some shape or form. I actually think it makes her way more credible. Way more human and to me that is attractive. But being 60 (me)-any woman below 40 is de facto attractive!!


  • #641
    breezy1985
    Registered Users Posts: 24,347 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Bobtheman wrote: »
    I dont fully agree. Most of the Discovery Characters display doubt and insecurity in some shape or form. I actually think it makes her way more credible. Way more human and to me that is attractive. But being 60 (me)-any woman below 40 is de facto attractive!!

    But do you think it is reductive to try show that larger people can be in Starfleet and then have her panting after a bit of a run or whatever while all the skinny people round her are fine


  • Advertisement
  • #642
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Evade wrote: »
    Quid pro quo for waived service/repair costs etc. Sisko brings it up at one point, I think it's when Quark sort of sells weapons from his holosuites.

    Well there's the overall thing yes but where did the characters get money from I meant.


  • #643
    breezy1985
    Registered Users Posts: 24,347 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Banana Republic 1 wrote: »
    Well there's the overall thing yes but where did the characters get money from I meant.

    It's one of the many half thought out issues in Trek.
    I choose to believe they are given a wage for dealing with non federation people.


  • #644
    Bobtheman
    Registered Users Posts: 2,640 ✭✭✭Bobtheman


    breezy1985 wrote: »
    But do you think it is reductive to try show that larger people can be in Starfleet and then have her panting after a bit of a run or whatever while all the skinny people round her are fine

    No I would not agree with that. I don't regard her as over weight . I know many people of her shape who would not be out of breath after a run. But I'm still glad she is there. She is an insecure as the rest to my mind. Likeable character.


  • #645
    breezy1985
    Registered Users Posts: 24,347 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Bobtheman wrote: »
    No I would not agree with that. I don't regard her as over weight jl.

    Well the writers do


  • #646
    Bobtheman
    Registered Users Posts: 2,640 ✭✭✭Bobtheman


    breezy1985 wrote: »
    Well the writers do

    Do you think so ? I never really thought about it. Hollywood still has a way to go on terms of fully embracing everyone but I hope they don't go over board. You notice that on a lot of TV they seem to always think they have to have a gay character despite only 10% of the population being gay. However if the gay community feels it helps then perhaps that's no harm - to over represent them. Given history.
    However the fact remains that hollywood will continue to hire mainly good looking thin people
    Look at the inclusion of seven of 9 did for voyager .


  • #647
    Bobtheman
    Registered Users Posts: 2,640 ✭✭✭Bobtheman


    The media play a double game. Throwing thin as the norm all the time.
    Portraying women sexually and men too.
    Then saying decrying lack of diversity or telling us to be accepting of ourselves or trying to tell us that celebrities have body shame issues too etc etc
    Switch facebook off and the rest would solve a lot of problems. Ban them.


  • #648
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Bobtheman wrote: »
    No I would not agree with that. I don't regard her as over weight . I know many people of her shape who would not be out of breath after a run. But I'm still glad she is there. She is an insecure as the rest to my mind. Likeable character.

    Whatever about the character, she is clearly overweight. Even more so in the third series.


  • #649
    breezy1985
    Registered Users Posts: 24,347 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Bobtheman wrote: »
    Look at the inclusion of seven of 9 did for voyager .


    In fairness I know she was meant to just be eye candy but she turned out to be the shows best actor and character


  • #650
    PhiloCypher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,388 ✭✭✭PhiloCypher


    Nody wrote: »
    It's good to excellent as long as you don't mind old style CGI. It's ok, not horrible bad but low res stuff etc. Be warned it's a slow burner in the first season but it do pick up speed from the second season forward and as any series it has it's set of filler episodes. The over all arch runs nicely imo and once the arc kicks off properly it's excellent. The character development for everyone is not earth shattering but it does it's job to push the story forward and overall it's enjoyable.

    In regards to the movies, yea, not something I'd recommend unless you're a hardcore BS5 fan honestly.

    I always found the cheaper sets more jarring then the low res cgi tbh. Great show all the same .


  • #651
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,031 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Bobtheman wrote: »
    No I would not agree with that. I don't regard her as over weight . I know many people of her shape who would not be out of breath after a run. But I'm still glad she is there. She is an insecure as the rest to my mind. Likeable character.

    I'm fine with a young ensign being constantly insecure, a first officer? Very much less so.

    She is deffo overweight, being out of breath or otherwise is irrelevant imo.


  • Advertisement
  • #652
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,031 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Bobtheman wrote: »
    You notice that on a lot of TV they seem to always think they have to have a gay character despite only 10% of the population being gay.

    Discovery has at least 3 gay characters (Stamets, Culber, Reno) and 3 more bi/trans/other (Georgiou, Adira, Gray)


    So thats 6 out of the 12 or so characters we are supposed to care about (and considering we dont know very much about some of the others, it wouldnt surprise me if they also turned out not straight)


  • #653
    pah
    Registered Users Posts: 3,383 ✭✭✭pah


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Discovery has at least 3 gay characters (Stamets, Culber, Reno) and 3 more bi/trans/other (Georgiou, Adira, Gray)


    So thats 6 out of the 12 or so characters we are supposed to care about (and considering we dont know very much about some of the others, it wouldnt surprise me if they also turned out not straight)


    The odds are certainly stacked that way.

    https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/10/16/star-trek-lower-decks-showrunner-claims-every-starfleet-officer-is-baseline-bisexual/


  • #654
    Goodshape
    Registered Users Posts: 8,488 ✭✭✭Goodshape


    That's good. I've always kinda believed more people would be "bisexual" – or, more to the point, just not care – if it weren't for current social norms.

    You're looking at the crew and putting them into boxes - 3 gays, 1 bi, a trans, an "other" - but I don't remember that rollcall on the show. Maybe a few hundred or a thousand years from now, they're just people.


  • #655
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,031 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Goodshape wrote: »
    That's good. I've always kinda believed more people would be "bisexual" – or, more to the point, just not care – if it weren't for current social norms.

    You're looking at the crew and putting them into boxes - 3 gays, 1 bi, a trans, an "other" - but I don't remember that rollcall on the show. Maybe a few hundred or a thousand years from now, they're just people.

    I'm not assigning boxes though, the show is, each of the characters I've listed above have been open about their sexuality, the show producers have explicitly told us they were gay/bi/whatever, this isn't my interpretation!


  • #656
    PhiloCypher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,388 ✭✭✭PhiloCypher


    I think an argument could be made that given how much the cultural landscape changed between Ent & Discovery, that the writers wrongly(imo) felt they had to catch up on 12 years of social progress in one show . When perhaps, given how many spin offs are in the works, they could have spread the representation out across the Pike and section 31 spin offs.

    Now saying all that, a surfeit of minority representation is the least of Discovery's problems. Which have more to do with the perfect storm of its lower decks concept, arc plotting and a shorter season meaning a certain character dominates what few episodes we get.


  • #657
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I'm not assigning boxes though, the show is, each of the characters I've listed above have been open about their sexuality, the show producers have explicitly told us they were gay/bi/whatever, this isn't my interpretation!

    I’ve noticed that they are segregating the cast into groups as the show goes on, maybe it’s just me but all the lgbtq characters are one core group and then there’s Burnham and book ,straight and black and then there’s the rest, the one liners.


  • #658
    corkie
    Registered Users Posts: 7,138 ✭✭✭corkie


    Gender Identity Issues in Star Trek Discovery vs TNG / TOS




    Why are people so caught up in the gender identity and or the sexuality of the actors/actress?


    As I'm posting might as well share this here as well: -

    {YouTube: Jessie Gender} Star Trek Discovery | Interview with Gray, Ian Alexander | TRANSGENDER REP & MORE

    The Digital Services Act 2024 [EU] ~ Social Media and You ~ Nanny State guidance for parental monitoring of apps ~ Censorship: - broad laws that will probably effect Adult use of same.



  • #659
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    corkie wrote: »
    Gender Identity Issues in Star Trek Discovery vs TNG / TOS




    Why are people so caught up in the gender identity and or the sexuality of the actors/actress?


    As I'm posting might as well share this here as well: -

    {YouTube: Jessie Gender} Star Trek Discovery | Interview with Gray, Ian Alexander | TRANSGENDER REP & MORE

    Because I’m my view they do so badly and only pay lip service to the concept. Even looking there at the interview clips with will Wheaton, he is just dropping words in a tick box exercise. The story portrays discovery as a ship of misfits. Has Hollywood really done an about turn since TNG and the issue raised by Gates McFadden, I doubt it there trying to sell use something that makes it seem like they have learned the lessons of the me too movement.


  • #660
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,031 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    corkie wrote: »

    Why are people so caught up in the gender identity and or the sexuality of the actors/actress?

    It's the characters people are talking about, I don't believe anyone gives a fiddlers about the actors themselves.

    Its just one more thing that, for me anyway, takes me out of the plot and into "ugh, why are they doing this?"


  • Advertisement
  • #661
    breezy1985
    Registered Users Posts: 24,347 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    GreeBo wrote: »
    It's the characters people are talking about, I don't believe anyone gives a fiddlers about the actors themselves.

    Its just one more thing that, for me anyway, takes me out of the plot and into "ugh, why are they doing this?"

    You just want TV to be straight white people like when you were a kid. Don't pretend it's about anything other than that


Advertisement