+- LibraIRC.net Forums (https://librairc.net/forums)
+-- Forum: Public Forums (https://librairc.net/forums/forum-47.html)
+--- Forum: General Discussions (https://librairc.net/forums/forum-49.html)
+--- Thread: Star Trek Series - 2017 (/thread-10313.html)
Star Trek Series - 2017 - Warren - 12-08-2016
As some of you may know, they're planning to reboot the Star Trek tv
series, and it will be airing sometime in 2017.
Many people seen the last series "Star Trek: Enterprise" to be something
of a failure, and really only a die-hard trekky could really appreciate it for
what it was.
It was after the network got the poor ratings for the show, that they
cancelled it, and announced that they were "going to wait another 10 years"
to give the show a chance to bounce back. basically, treating it like the
old 60s star trek, thinking that by giving it a break, that it will pick up
more appeal.
I didnt really agree with that philosophy, because the appeal for star trek
has always been there, and you can't blame poor ratings on a bad show, for
lack of appeal.
The new series, in my eyes, is already waving some huge warning flags, that
is a bit concerning, especially since they haven't even aired a pilot.
A huge part of what makes star trek great, has always been its casting... a place
where the last Star Trek, really fell short. The captain and the first officer, being two
well-known actors from a couple of really bad tv shows. Though I guess you could
say even Kirk was known as an actor in some westerns, and Picard was a relatively
famous actor even before star trek... he at least fit into the role perfectly.
What I find concerning, is that when they talk about the news for the show, they picked
two famous new actors, but whats upsetting, i'm certain that they picked them because
of their gender and skin color. I know this, because in the news articles i've read, they
describe how they really wanted a female captain, and a female first officer, and then
mentioned that they wanted a black woman as part of the crew. To take it one step further,
they said that they were also going to have a gay person as part of the crew.
That really just blows my mind, because, i don't care if the actors are male, female, gay or
straight... but you should be picking people to fit into your story, and not picking people for
the sake of diversity alone. Which thats exactly what they said they were doing, they
wanted to stick to the tradition of diversity, of having someone, black, asian, etc.
I just think, a show, that is founded on such high moral grounds, is starting itself out by
being racially, gender selective. basically, its almost the inverse of discrimination, which in a
strange way, is still a form of discrimination. You're no longer picking actors for their ability or
capability to fulfill a role, but you're intentionally singling out a common denomination, for
the soul sake of diversity.
The news article i read also pointed out shortly after saying they were going to have a gay
crew member, that the director of the show was gay too... first of all, why does that even
matter? that's his business, and none of anyone elses business what his sexual preference
is, and has no place in being in the news. It was like they said it though, because they felt
that everyone should know how progressive the director was, and that it will have some sort
of undertone for writing in a gay crew member.
Its all just a little bizarre if you ask me, because, the other series, have already had... a young
captain, an old captain, a black captain, and a female captain. Each of them (not counting ST:E)
were amazing, and I respected them all. I just don't ever recall though, the media portraying
these characters in advance by their gender, race, or preference. They just fit into their parts.
Now i feel like, they want a black female captain, just so they can say they've done it.
Its like when I vote for a president, I dont want a president for the soul reason that he's one
color or gender, just for the sake of them being that color or gender. I choose a person to be a
president, based on if they will fit into that role, and improve things.
in closing.... its not a great way to start this show with such questionable casting requirements.
i apologize if anything said here was offensive to anyone, but that's not the intention.
its because i respect people from all walks of life, that i myself almost find this sort of casting offensive.
Re: Star Trek Series - 2017 - Warren - 12-08-2016
furthermore, the new star trek 2017, is going to be placed something like 10 years before kirks era.
again! they already did that in Star Trek: Enterprise, and that was a big flop. I dont understand
whats so difficult with continuing in the same timeline of TNG, Voyager, DS9... yet, even the
movies themselves.... go back to the kirk era, and bungled everything up there as well... having to
rewrite a whole new timeline, just to cope with the fact that JJ Abrams never seen an episode of
star trek. lol
I'm just not impressed with the new star trek, and it hasn't even aired yet.
Its one thing for the tv shows, to go "back in time" when they're in the future...
but now they're trying to redo what the lamest version of star trek already did...
they say they wanted to "bridge the gap between our current timeline, and the era
of kirk, so that we can see how we got from there to here"
I don't really care about getting from there to here, lol scott bakula already did that
poorly in ST:E, now I want to go back........ back to the future!
Re: Star Trek Series - 2017 - Warren - 12-08-2016
I wish Trump was here.... he could make star trek great again....
Re: Star Trek Series - 2017 - Warren - 12-08-2016
To add insult to injury, the news article I read about Star Trek 2017, said that CBS (who owns
the rights to star trek), has been under fire recently for supposedly having too many white male
actors in its shows. That star trek will help make up for this.
So basically, they're saying that Star Trek will be some sort of reparations for CBS to wash its
hands clean from their other "non-diverse" shows.
If this is how they plan to make Star Trek, I think Gene Roddenberry would prefer they left his
vision alone, and go back to working on his obscenities like Hannibal. No show, is better than a
show based on racial discrimination.
Thats another thing, is that Bryan Fuller also said that the network allowed him to be more
graphic with his TV Show Hannibal, so he thinks that it will be okay for him to have a more graphic
star trek. basically, he's saying that he has no qualms with using profanity on the show.
Star Trek was founded on a vision of a better future, that told a story, and mixed in good values
along the way... from the sound of it, they want to trash roddenberry's vision with a lot of
progressive smut with a star trek label.
Re: Star Trek Series - 2017 - Warren - 14-08-2016
any thoughts?
Re: Star Trek Series - 2017 - catalyst - 14-08-2016
sorry... that was way too much reading about star trek for me
Re: Star Trek Series - 2017 - RamsesIII - 14-08-2016
Feel like I dont have to watch now ..
Re: Star Trek Series - 2017 - immortal - 14-08-2016
serie hmmm gonna watch it i guess
Re: Star Trek Series - 2017 - mrpanda - 15-08-2016
back 2 da future !
Re: Star Trek Series - 2017 - redi - 15-08-2016
god suggestion Warren . put trump in a missile and let him get lost in the rings of Saturn. might just save the world a war with china
Re: Star Trek Series - 2017 - mrpanda - 15-08-2016
Think 40% of the people need to vote, for an election to be valid
if all yanks would stay at home, i think that be revolution
RE: Star Trek Series - 2017 - Warren - 17-08-2016
I write an essay about star trek, and everybody talks about trump. lol
i think no matter what happens with the election, whether people vote for trump or hilary,
there's going to be "a lot" of pissed off people in our country.
its a scenario that can't be won.