SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Series is set 10 years before the USS Enterprise's five-year mission.
We still don't know much specific information about Star Trek: Discovery, the franchise's return to television after over a decade, but showrunner Bryan Fuller has dropped a few more hints during the Television Critics Association press tour this week.
According to TV Guide , the show's lead character will be a woman, but she won't be the captain of the USS Discovery. All iterations of Star Trek, especially from The Next Generation onward, have had an ensemble cast to some degree, but the commanding officer's perspective has usually been the most important.
"To see a character from a different perspective on a starship, who has a different dynamic [and] relationship with the captain and with subordinates, felt like it was going to give us richer context [and allow us to] have different types of stories with that character," said Fuller.
Discovery will be firmly committed to diversity in casting, a traditional virtue of olderTrek series (at least relative to what other contemporary TV shows were doing). In addition to the female lead, Fuller hopes to cast an openly gay character, and The Hollywood Reporter says that the rest of the seven-character cast will be rounded out by "a female admiral, a male Klingon captain, a male admiral, a male adviser and a British male doctor." Fuller also wants to have more aliens on the show and to have those alien races look more like aliens and less like humans in heavy makeup.
And we're getting a few more details on where Discovery will fit into Trek's vast fictional universe. Fuller says the show is set in the "Prime" Trek timeline—not the "Kelvin" timeline established by JJ Abrams' rebooted film franchise in 2009—and will deal with an event referenced but not fully explored in past Trek fiction. The show will be set a decade before the USS Enterprise's five-year mission documented by the original series, and while this opens up the door to original series characters that fans may already be familiar with, Fuller wants Discovery's first season to focus on establishing the new characters.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 14 2016, @05:37AM
Of course she will. Because the 21st century is sexist, and men are the inferior sex.
Roddenberry envisioned a future in which racism would be nonexistent, and yet sexism was still a problem. Remember Janice Lester, who pointed out that in the 2260s, every starship captain was a man. Toward the end of the 20th century, it seemed impossible that sexism would emerge again by the 23rd century, but then Obama was elected and we saw how suddenly racism made a huge resurgence in real life. Today, Janice Lester looks like a prophet.
Remember when Quinn made every male crewmember of Voyager disappear, and only half the crew vanished. Voyager the series was a product of the 1990s, when equality was still possible to imagine. It's an anachronistic relic now.
Oh I'm so terribly sorry. Science fiction isn't about social commentary at all, and civil rights have no place in your picture show. Set inane gossip to maximum. Engage.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 14 2016, @06:27AM
I wonder 50 years from how the SJWs and their detractors will look. And if the media will seem as dated as 70s chic.
It's always hard to say which side of history you'll be on, but my suspicion is that the patronizing of minorities will be seen as proof of continuing racism. Not quite what I think they are trying to accomplish.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Bot on Sunday August 14 2016, @06:33AM
> Not quite what I think they are trying to accomplish.
Divide et impera, as usual.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 14 2016, @06:42AM
It *is* proof of continued racism, the SJW's are the racists of the present day - going as far as calling for racial segregation at schools to not offend the feelies of the poor minorities (I wish I was making this up).
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 14 2016, @08:57AM
Moderating facts troll :)
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-new-segregation-on-campus/18385 [spiked-online.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 14 2016, @03:25PM
I'm OK with this, just point me to my white cis-gendered male-only housing please.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2016, @01:15AM
From your linked article:
The segregation and differential treatment that previous generations of student campaigners fought so hard against are now being rehabilitated by young activists. Members of the US Commission on Civil Rights have spoken out against the introduction of racially themed accommodation. In the UK, the gay-rights group Stonewall has said it would prefer to see ‘a culture that is inclusive and accepting’ rather than separate LGBT campus accommodation. Today’s radicals, however, are more likely to view the progressive demand for equality in education and relationships as a dangerous cover for the exercise of white heteronormative power.
I'm not knowledgeable about the topic, but I have the impression that many--if not all--of the requests for segregated facilities are coming from minority students. For example, the Afrikan Student Union made a request of UCLA. [dailywire.com] The Black Justice League made a request of Princeton [princeton.edu] (we had a discussion about it here [soylentnews.org]--although the summary for that topic misrepresents the situation). Feel free to point out examples where "white cis-gendered males" apart from the AC commenter above me are making the requests. If that's happening, I, like you, will question their motivation.
As for the suggestion that "the SJWs" are the only racists remaining, it may appear that way because it's unfashionable to express racist attitudes. I tend to suspect that there are still people who view themselves as members of a superior race, while expressing an ersatz desire for equality and concern that others' racial awareness is "reverse racism."
Let's look at something more concrete. The U.S. Department of Education prepared a report, [ed.gov] "Public School Graduates and Dropouts from the Common Core of Data: School Year 2009-10," which has this to say about recipients of high school diplomas:
Across the United States, the AFGR [Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate] was highest for Asian/Pacific Islander students (93.5 percent) (table 2). The rates for other groups were 83.0 percent for White students, 71.4 percent for Hispanic students, 69.1 percent for American Indian/Alaska Native students, and 66.1 percent for Black students.
For whatever reasons, there are disparities along racial lines that mean many students aren't even getting to college. Some of the ones who have entered college are asking for segregated housing. My assumption is that they intend to advance their own interests. I see a distinction between their requests for segregation with the (largely past) reality of segregation implemented by the majority. These students have comparatively little power; they protest and make requests which are politely listened to, but typically not put into effect. If they happen to have racist attitudes, it doesn't matter much because they aren't in a position to oppress others.
The AC commenter(s) in this thread seem to propose that segregation is inherently racist and furthers racism, that students should learn to cope with taunting as part of their college education, and that integrated housing will help them do so because it will bring them together with students of varying backgrounds. I think the first commenter may agree with me when I say that students who are members of disadvantaged minorities are likely to have insight into what's best for themselves. They may be mistaken in thinking that segregation will be helpful to them. However, other approaches haven't been fully effective. The fact that segregation was used as a means of oppression doesn't mean it can't become a means of equalisation; nor should we reflexively label those who ask for it as the new oppressors.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday August 14 2016, @12:04PM
And if the media will seem as dated as 70s chic.
For some examples, think of all of Heinlein's cringeworthy hippie characters or 70s sitcoms like threes company or laverne and shirley.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Sunday August 14 2016, @05:56PM
You assume that, in 50 years, anyone under the age of about 80 will even be able to have that conversation?
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Sunday August 14 2016, @07:51AM
Remember Janice Lester,
Yea, so much for continuity. Kinda hard to get a female Admiral without her first being a Captain. And a seven member primary cast with a Klingon captain (not said if Star Fleet or not but Lt. Worf was supposed to be the first Klingon to make Officer nearly a century later and kinda hard to be a regular if not Star Fleet) and a pair of Admirals. And if the protagonist isn't the Captain then there has to be one of those around somewhere too assuming there is a ship.. or does an Admiral command a single ship now? Sounds like they are a bit top heavy, all Chiefs and no Indians. I guess on their timeline not only does everyone get a trophy, they staff their ships with no rank lower than a Commander, except they might have a few Lieutenants mucking out the reactor core?
Doesn't sound like I will be missing much by not subscribing to CBS All Access.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 14 2016, @08:42AM
Why not staff a ship with nothing but captains. There was an episode of Enterprise when Phlox was sleep-deprived and was calling everyone captain. Hand me that scanner, captain.
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Sunday August 14 2016, @08:56AM
Why not staff a ship with nothing but captains.
Division of labor/knowledge which makes running something as complex as a starship possible. Not to mention in a tense, time sensitive situation, you need a single source to make decisions. Democracy may work well for government, but is absolute suicide in the military.
There's a reason why too many cooks spoils the soup is a saying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 14 2016, @09:40AM
Oh please. A starship is so heavily automated a single captain can run the whole thing. The rest of the crew is there to do science experiments and make friendly with the locals.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Sunday August 14 2016, @11:59AM
AC has a dramatic point but note that over time "admiral inflation" has been a thing in Navies. The USN has roughly 300 ships and 200 admirals. Admittedly plenty of shore leadership positions have an admiral, so only maybe half the ships are led by admirals right now. This always struck me as rather optimistic that the Enterprise as the pride of the fleet wouldn't have a rather aged admiral in command.
A couple hundred years etc and much like grade inflation everybody on a starship is going to be an admiral. Sure they'll be one old dude appointed in charge, but they'll all be admiral flag rank.
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Sunday August 14 2016, @09:49PM
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday August 14 2016, @08:55AM
You seriously believe that there were no women captains in TOS? Or that there were no women on the bridge until "The Cage"?
As for regulars not in starfleet, not convinced that Quark was in starfleet. Or Neelix. Or Wesley (when he was a regular), or TPol. And that was in te days when most regulars appeared in all episodes, and all regulars appeared in most, and there was one location to follow the action. Modern TV isn't like that, regulars may rarely meet each other.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 14 2016, @09:10AM
You seriously believe that there were no women captains in TOS? Or that there were no women on the bridge until "The Cage"?
There were no women captains in TOS. Number One was not a captain. I can believe that Starfleet went through a period of sexism during which women were not promoted to captain and the uniforms of the time required women to wear skirts.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday August 14 2016, @07:23PM
Your argument is that in 2269 there's no starfleet captains, despite
Your world of starship captains doesn't admit women
Is ambiguous at best, what exactly is the "world of starship captains"? We know for a fact there were female captains in 2154 (Hernandez) and 2286 (The Saratoga Captain in STIV), and this doesn't state that there's no female captains, just like someone who's having serious mental issues might state "your world of network engineers doesn't admit women" because they didn't get a job (despite not knowing one end of a cat5 from another)
However a much stronger argument comes from "The Cage"
Number One: She's replacing your former yeoman, sir.
Captain Christopher Pike: No, she does a good job, all right; it's just that I... can't get used to having a woman on the bridge.
[Number One gives him a look]
Captain Christopher Pike: No offense, Lieutenant, you're... different, of course.
Pike's statements may show that starfleet in 2254 had only recently re-admitted women into it's ranks, implying that they had vanished sometime before Pike had started his career - probably around 2225-30. Perhaps the same event that meant the captain's log was recorded on paper in that era.
In the Post-Kelvin era there were female captains in 2259 (STID), and the Kelvin event and timeline split occurred in 2233, when Pike would be graduating from the academy.
If you take "The Cage" at face value, but then there's plenty of contradictory statements throughout trek canon. People justify what they can and ignore the sillier points.
However from what I read about Discovery, nothing contradicts your statement:
I can believe that Starfleet went through a period of sexism during which women were not promoted to captain and the uniforms of the time required women to wear skirts.
As the lead will be a Lt Cmdr, not a captain.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday August 14 2016, @08:08PM
As the lead will be a Lt Cmdr, not a captain.
I didn't raise an issue with her, because I too have seen _The Cage_. My problem was with a female Admiral since that implies a previous Captain with a command unless she is strictly a career base commander. The Star Fleet of Kirk's era didn't seem so degraded that it would put people without line experience in charge.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday August 15 2016, @01:31PM
Yet McCoy became an admiral and it's unlikely he'd have captained a starship. Sticker was a commodore without having captained a starship, so even if you take Lester's statement as "no women captain starships" and take Pikes view that women don't serve on the bridge, except for Number One apparently, that still leaves open room for an admiral having been promoted like Stocker.
However that's all rather silly as there is more evidence in canon that betazoids can mind read ferengi than there is for some anti-women move in starfleet.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday August 14 2016, @08:57AM
yet sexism was still a problem
I reviewed her file on the computer. I'll admit, I'm not as familiar with the 23rd century as I am with the 24th century. Dax could probably give me a history lesson about how women used to wear less.
Remember when Quinn made every male crewmember of Voyager disappear
Well, he was a suicidal, eco-hippie, navel-gazing, omnipotent mangina. Was that your point? Good grief, even Q [wikia.com] puts out. And if you'll remember, she turns out to be the deadbeat mom, leaving Auntie Kathy to save the day. Or at least, leaving Q to have to put the fear of Q into him. Damned millennial hipster Qs. He probably eats kale, too in addition to being a dudebro!
Now, if we want to engage JJTrek with extreme prejudice, be my guest. When feminists agree with me [nerdyfeminist.com] (and for pretty much the same reasons), you know JJTrek is shit. It's typical SJW fare. The hunnies! Protect the hunnies! Give me a fucking break.
Hopefully you're not intimidated by Q [wikia.com]?
…
I mean, how the hell is the captain not the main character?
As far as racism, don't worry about Obama. He's just one of the Red Dresses, like Clinton. The lizard people want to divide us. How else could there be riots in every major city in 2018? Trump is part of that as well, even if I don't think he's actually a lizard….
I guarantee you, if they have a trans woman character (I should be patient since they just now succeeded in retconning Sulu as the gay adoptive parent of Demora), she won't be played by a trans woman. SJWs can't understand how much of a sucker punch that is, because they don't fucking care about social justice. All they care about is being smugly morally superior.
Back to my Supergirl binge!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 14 2016, @09:23AM
I mean, how the hell is the captain not the main character?
When the main character is Admiral Kirk or Commander Sisko, to name two.
Hopefully you're not intimidated by Q?
Amanda Rogers is my favorite Q. Best coming of age ever: surprise, you're omnipotent and don't need to breathe, let's go spacewalking without suits!
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Sunday August 14 2016, @01:38PM
I should be patient since they just now succeeded in retconning Sulu as the gay adoptive parent of Demora
Why do you assume she had to be adopted? Its the 23rd century: Spot of cloning tech to embed Sulu & partner's DNA into a donor egg, surrogate mother (if they can't fit men with wombs) & Bob's your auntie!
We're already closer to it [wikipedia.org] than we are to matter transporters or warp drive.
she won't be played by a trans woman
If so, they'll be behind the times. The BBC have already done a show with a trans character played by an actual trans person [bbc.co.uk].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by rts008 on Sunday August 14 2016, @01:14PM
That's one of the more willingly ignorant statements I've ever heard about sci-f-, and what it is 'supposed to be/not be'.
The vast majority of sci-fi I've encountered has delved into social commentary, a lot of times it is the main focus.
I think Harry Seldon would like a word with you...
(Score: 2) by rleigh on Sunday August 14 2016, @06:27PM
"Science fiction isn't about social commentary at all"
I wasn't sure if this was being said sarcastically or not, but I think for anyone who has ever read sci-fi, that it's quite clear that a futuristic/advanced setting is very often used as a juxtaposition to the present day in order to highlight certain differences. There are plenty of stories with mixed-race or different race characters in, or female protagonists etc. Example: Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress; the protagonist is mixed-race and the moon's population are a in a melting pot of races and cultures. These explore what could be, and by doing so highlight problems in our society today. Because it's in such a different setting, it allow exploration of topics which are (or were) taboo or controversial, including race, religion, politics, science, societal norms, life and death, human rights, humanity, or whatever.
Star Trek in all of its various series did have some really superb instances of all these things. To be on topic, I think that the diversity of the crew isn't that important; there was nothing really to improve upon from the original series or next generation in that respect. What really matters are intelligent, mature, detailed plots which actually mean something. You can always visit a planet or other setting for additional diversity. For me, episodes such as Darmok, The Drumhead and The Inner Light (reduces me to tears every time I watch it), really explore civilisation and humanity in a way no other medium does. If they can produce material of equivalent quality and depth, then the number of "aliens" on the cast is not really that important to me. If they make the others "look more like aliens and less like humans" will that have a positive or negative effect on our ability to empathise with them? And will it be a cheap way to add "diversity" *within the trek universe) as a cheap tactic rather than letting the plot writing stand for itself?