New Star Trek Series Premieres January 2017


Television

451 to 468 of 468 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Ed Reppert wrote:
Browman wrote:
Saru should definitely be captain
It's not like Starfleet has only one ship.

Actually—given the events of the war—they don't have much more than that...

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
My one concern with Saru as captain is actually a pretty old-fashioned one: He's just not particularly inspiring.

Dunno. I thought his speech to the crew before they started attacking the Imperial Palace was quite inspiring and one of the better moments of an already great show. So when I heard that the Discovery would get a new captain I was really disappointed ,because I think that he and Burnham make for a great team. But then I'm a big fan of Saru from the start, it's probably my favorite character from the whole show.

On the other hand, I really liked the whole season so I trust that their idea about that new captain will be a good one. I hope it is not Spock, though, because I seriously believe that the show stands on their own feet and don't need any big, well-known names in it(Sarek is ok, though).

OK, and I admit that I geeked out a bit when the final scene came up.

Dark Archive

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
1) Is there any precedent for a "central protagonist" in Star Trek?

The original series was pretty strongly Kirk-centric. Spock and McCoy were definitely secondary characters...most of the rest of what is now considered the "main cast" were barely more than extras in the vast majority of the episodes, only infrequently being elevated to the same level as Spock or McCoy.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Let me make something clear:

Threat From Another World, I wasn't accusing you of any misogyny, sexism or anything of that kind. I did not post that as some kind of attack, or trick. I was not referring to the character's gender, I was talking about the character being a new character. My issue is with grognard gatekeeping, sorry if I wasn't clear.

To be clear I'm sorry that my tone was presumptive and my point was unclear. That was on me for not taking the time to make my point clear.

So let me clarify:

The complaints leveled against Michael being a "Mary Sue" could equally be applied to Spock, Janeway or Kirk or Picard. Mary Sue is so overused, misused it has become meaningless. Nerds are always resistant to new characters being as cool as the old characters. It's such a strange instinct we have. The Mary Sue label is a symptom of that resistance to change.

This is my favorite Star Trek series, I've seen them all, but I never found myself truly invested in the characters in the way I'm invested in this particular crew of characters.

So when the protagonist of the show does a cool thing, that's the show functioning as intended. When the narrative ties up at the end of the season that's the show functioning as intended.

These writers are being very deliberate with their choices, and what I thought were missteps early in the series, all have had payoff so far. I am sure the politics of the Klingons will continue to play a role throughout the future of the series.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

On the other hand.

Mary Sue is a gendered insult levelled primarily at female protagonists. Nobody calls Luke Skywalker, Aragorn or Neo Mary Sue characters. Even when they explicitly have chosen one storylines and are universally loved, are capable of multiple disciplines and powers and don't have any time working hard to learn these skills in the primary text.

So maybe stop using it because then it won't feel like every disagreement is because you're a sexist. Think a bit harder, and make deeper criticism without resorting to lazy, sexist shorthand that has been co-opted by actual sexist jerks.

You might find your talking points don't get derailed by having to pre-emptively defend yourself.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

On the other hand.

Mary Sue is a gendered insult levelled primarily at female protagonists. Nobody calls Luke Skywalker, Aragorn or Neo Mary Sue characters. Even when they explicitly have chosen one storylines and are universally loved, are capable of multiple disciplines and powers and don't have any time working hard to learn these skills in the primary text.

So maybe stop using it because then it won't feel like every disagreement is because you're a sexist. Think a bit harder, and make deeper criticism without resorting to lazy, sexist shorthand that has been co-opted by actual sexist jerks.

You might find your talking points don't get derailed by having to pre-emptively defend yourself.

Or at least stick to using Mary Sue in something close to the original context - self-insert fan fiction characters of a certain type.

Compared to the Trope Namer and those she was satirizing, the overwhelming majority of characters in mainstream fiction labelled as such are pale imitations who might check some of the boxes, but definitely lack the full effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:


Mary Sue is a gendered insult levelled primarily at female protagonists. Nobody calls Luke Skywalker, Aragorn or Neo Mary Sue characters. Even when they explicitly have chosen one storylines and are universally loved, are capable of multiple disciplines and powers and don't have any time working hard to learn these skills in the primary text.

I apologize as well. No worries we are good.

Actually their is a male equivalent of Mary sue which is lesser known and applied to male characters as well so it's not something that is limited to female characters called Gary Stu. Wolverine in the comics is a Gary Stu. Spock, Kirk and Mccoy the same From now I will use the term favored character. Fans don't like such characters because it feels like they overshadow the others to a significant degree. The writers tend to favor Michael too much and to the detriment of the other characters imo

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:


So when the protagonist of the show does a cool thing, that's the show functioning as intended. When the narrative ties up at the end of the season that's the show functioning as intended.

I agree except once, twice, three times or more it does become annoying to me at least. As I said above it overshadows the other characters and it seems like no one but the favored character can come up with the solutions imo. With a show like STD and similar shows when it's a ensemble cast it's good to change things up every now and then. Even the Orville suffers from the same though to much a lesser degree.

I will say this though too often words like sexist, racist etc are tossed around so much as well that they too lose their meaning.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed post and reply.

Scarab Sages

@WormysQueue: I agree, that was a great speech. I'm not even saying he couldn't manage it - just that there'd be some significant character development to do.

The Thing From Another World wrote:

Actually their is a male equivalent of Mary sue which is lesser known and applied to male characters as well so it's not something that is limited to female characters called Gary Stu. Wolverine in the comics is a Gary Stu. Spock, Kirk and Mccoy the same From now I will use the term favored character. Fans don't like such characters because it feels like they overshadow the others to a significant degree. The writers tend to favor Michael too much and to the detriment of the other characters imo

The term I'd heard was "Marty Stu" - and given that the concept utterly transcends gender to start with, it couldn't matter less in any way whether the name of the concept (which was coined all the way back in 1973) is tagged with a male or female name.

After all, the most famous Mary Sue in the history of literature is male.

Is Michael Burnham a "Mary Sue"? I've never thought about it before last night after I composed my last posts. Frankly, I've always been a little leery of the term itself and the attitude that seems to sometimes reside behind it. It's one thing to call hack writing out for what it is, but just as often people seem to use it simply to dump on the very concept of great/extraordinary/special individuals. I think she's great, for the most part. If there's one thing I hate, though, it's career critics (professional and amateur) who hold imagination and talent in contempt and who actually believe that tearing down the talents of others and telling artists how to be creative, despite having no such talent themselves, is somehow the most profoundly helpful thing anybody can do. There seems to be some of that coming at this show and others from multiple directions, and not one of them is any better for it.

"Never explain your art. People who ask you to do so are idiots. Never explain yourself."
- Les Barany (agent to H. R. Giger)


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Shadow Kosh wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
1) Is there any precedent for a "central protagonist" in Star Trek?
The original series was pretty strongly Kirk-centric. Spock and McCoy were definitely secondary characters...most of the rest of what is now considered the "main cast" were barely more than extras in the vast majority of the episodes, only infrequently being elevated to the same level as Spock or McCoy.

TOS S1 Kirk and Spock were the only regular cast members. McCoy was added in s2. Everyone else were guest stars. And that is why Shatner was such a jerk to James, George, Walter, and Nichelle. He likely would have been to Majel as well, but she was involved with the boss.

Scarab Sages

GreenDragon1133 wrote:
He likely would have been to Majel as well, but she was involved with the boss.

Even back then, science fiction had already established one thing: You do not piss of The Computer.

Scarab Sages

So it occurred to me last night, apropos of nothing, that the 'awards ceremony' scene at the end of last episode...well, it was all basically The Wizard of Oz: The fearful Lion (Saru) gets awarded for his courage, the frosty Tin Man (Stamets) gets awarded for his heart, the flaky Scarecrow (Tilly) gets awarded for her brains, and of course Dorothy (Burnham) gets to 'return home' in multiple senses.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

...AM TOTO?!?

Dark Archive

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
I'd been anticipating, years ago before there was any guarantee of any more good Star Trek, that so long as there were, the next captain would be gay...of course, it didn't quite work out like that,

[tangent] Watching the first episode or three of Enterprise, back in the day, with Archer inviting 'old friend' Tripp to his bedroom to watch a bunch of guys in speedos splash around in a pool, I thought they were going to go there, but apparently not. Instead we got five seasons of the two of them farting around having or not having relationships with catsuit-cheesecake-Vulcan. :) [/tangent]

Quote:
Ah, but...first ALIEN captain?!? Now THAT'S our new frontier!

Yeah, from a meta standpoint, the Federation should have tons of Andorian, Tellarite, Vulcan, etc. captains (as well as any of these newer aliens being introduced over the years, like Betazoids or Trill or whatever the cyborg crewperson is in Discovery). I'd definitely want to see a Tellarite, in particular, as they've gotten the short end of the stick, characterization wise, IMO.

And yet, from a different meta standpoint, we're still waiting on a Latino captain or an Asian captain (for more than a few episodes, before being killed off and replaced by a white guy, anyway) or a gay Captain. There's a lot of boxes left to tick off, even for a show that broke ground with it's bridge crew including a black woman, an Asian man and a Russian who looked like one of the Monkees.

I suppose there aren't any little blue-skinned kids with antennae watching who will be inspired by the notion that they too could someday be a captain. :)

Dark Archive

Set wrote:
There's a lot of boxes left to tick off, even for a show that broke ground with it's bridge crew including a black woman, an Asian man and a Russian who looked like one of the Monkees.

Most of the bridge crew didn't really became "main characters" until the movies, though. During the actual run of the series, most of them were less developed than Nurse Chapel or Yeoman Rand. (Obviously excluding Kirk, Spock, and McCoy...although Scotty also generally got a bit more than the others.)


CBS planning 4 (!) additional Star Trek TV series:

1: A Starfleet Academy show, likely to be ongoing.
2: An animated series.
3: A mini-series to be helmed by Nicholas Meyer, focused on the life and times of Khan.
4: A mini-series set post-TNG/DS9/Voyager, focusing on Picard

The most interesting is the last of these, with CBS rumoured to be prepared to spend big bucks to get Patrick Stewart to return as Picard for one last hurrah, which he may be up for.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

Werthead wrote:

CBS planning 4 (!) additional Star Trek TV series:

1: A Starfleet Academy show, likely to be ongoing.
2: An animated series.
3: A mini-series to be helmed by Nicholas Meyer, focused on the life and times of Khan.
4: A mini-series set post-TNG/DS9/Voyager, focusing on Picard

The most interesting is the last of these, with CBS rumoured to be prepared to spend big bucks to get Patrick Stewart to return as Picard for one last hurrah, which he may be up for.

I hadn't heard that the mini-series would be about Picard and actually advance the timeline of the original timeline. That might actually get me to watch.

Any word on if shows 1-3 would be original timeline or movie timeline?


JoelF847 wrote:

I hadn't heard that the mini-series would be about Picard and actually advance the timeline of the original timeline. That might actually get me to watch.

Any word on if shows 1-3 would be original timeline or movie timeline?

The movie timeline is unavailable to them, as it's owned by Paramount and CBS don't have the rights to it. They have the rights to the previous TV shows, but not the Abramsverse movies. There's also a bit of a question mark over the TOS/TNG movies as well.

If CBS and Viacom re-merge this may not be so much of a problem, but that seems less likely at the moment.

451 to 468 of 468 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Television / New Star Trek Series Premieres January 2017 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Television