Breaking news out of Toronto’s STAR TREK: DISCOVERY this evening: the lead role in 2017’s Trek revival appears to have finally been cast, and it’s a familiar face from one of the most popular shows in the United States.

Variety and The Hollywood Reporter report that Sonequa Martin-Green, best known to US audiences as Sasha Williams on AMC’s monster hit The Walking Dead, will be taking on the central character in DISCOVERY, though little at this time is known about that role past Bryan Fuller’s comments earlier this summer (“a lieutenant commander… with caveats” known as “Number One”).

Martin-Green, 32, is an Alabama native and has also had recurring roles on ABC’s Once Upon a Time and CBS’s The Good Wife before joining The Walking Dead in 2012. Both news outlets also report that she will continue to remain a series regular on the cable zombie drama while leading DISCOVERY, as the two shows’ production schedules do not conflict – The Walking Dead has wrapped for the current season (and should Sasha survive the year, work on that show will not begin again until next summer).

In addition to today’s casting reveal — which has not yet been officially announced by CBS — STAR TREK: DISCOVERY also stars Michelle Yeoh, Anthony Rapp, Doug JonesChris Obi, Shazad Latif, and Mary Chieffo.

Keep checking back at TrekCore for more news on the upcoming series!

  • CaptainDonovin

    It’s coming together finally.

    • Michael

      Or falling apart, depending on who you ask.

  • Alex Huffman

    Roll Tide.

  • M33

    Good! A lesser known actor!
    Oh, wait…
    Nevermind.

    I’m sure she will do fine.

  • Fctiger

    Shasha is coming to Star Trek! For any TWD fan this is amazing news. I’m still put off by the premise but the more I hear the more excited I’m getting. Now that they are finally letting the cast out the bag hopefully we will get more on the actual plot line of the show soon.

    • M33

      My biggest curiosity is how much will they stick with or deviate from the existing trappings of that time period. (ie ships, interiors, terminology, uniforms, technology).
      There is a big chance this could look totally different from the existing TOS era, much like how ENT was a big departure from previously existing canon (although they did have 110+ years between them).
      Granted, they could say things changed a lot from the 2250s to the 2260s, but remember that the NCC 1701 was launched in 2245, so that design ethic would already exist in the 2250s.
      This will be very interesting to watch unfold…

      • SpaceCadet

        I believe it’s been stated already this will be a reimagining of the look of Star Trek. It won’t look like TOS but will reflect more modern sensibilities, just as we’ve seen with the Kelvin timeline movies.

        • M33

          I’ve read that, too.
          But it could be as light of a reimagining like the Kelvin uniforms were compared to the TOS uniforms.
          It could also be very different.
          If so, then it really begs the question, “if you are going to do a period piece, why are you trying to make things different than they were?”
          Wouldn’t it have been easier to set this in the post-Nemesis era, or splinter off to a different TOS-era alternate timeline, so creative freedom could have been absolute?
          Why set it in the Prime timeline if they are going to play fast and loose with all the existing precedent?
          To me, it is going to be an interesting endeavor to watch to see how they are going to have their cake and eat it too.

          • SpaceCadet

            In doing a prequel to a show that’s 50 years old the showrunners are basically damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. If they keep things consistent with how things looked on the TOS then there will be a segment of the fanbase saying the look of the new series is dated and corny. If they change things up then a lot of fans will say that DSC isn’t consistent with the previously established aesthetic. I think it’s the same gripe as what happened on ENT. It’s impossible to please everyone.

          • M33

            I do understand the concern.
            The problem is they really can’t do a reimaging of what the TOS era looked like.
            Those facts were already established by TNG Relics, DS9 Trials and Tribble-ations, and ENT In a Mirror Darkly.
            To change them for the sake of “updating” eliminates the entire purpose of setting it in the Prime timeline.
            That is why the 2009 movie worked so brilliantly is that it allowed the Prime timeline to be what it is and allowed the producers creative freedom to “update” the TOS era to “modern” sensibilities.
            This is why I am very curious to see how they are going to pull this off.
            Otherwise, the show might develop Enterprise syndrome.

          • SpaceCadet

            I get what you’re saying but somehow I doubt we’re going to see the female Starfleet officers with bun hairstyles and short skirt uniforms. 😉

          • M33

            Haha!
            Yeah, those short skirts…
            Maybe we can hope for a Rand crossweave hair-do?

          • Fctiger

            As I said though I wouldn’t hold much faith in that. My guess its going to be like the KT films and look much more updated. They will do a few things to keep it set in the TOS world like how the KT crew had similar phasers and communicators but overall I think the aesthetic will be night and day.

          • Zarm

            Which is probably why they should not obligate themselves to do exactly that by making a prequel. It is indeed a dilemma, but it is one that they set themselves up for by choosing an established time period. I have no sympathy for the struggle, if only because it’s their own choice to try and leech off the popularity of the original series that binds them into such expectations to begin with. Prequels- and their inherently-parasitic attempt to capitalize off the popularity of a well-known property- are not a smart move unless you’re willing to accept all the responsibilities to the fandom that come with them.

          • Fctiger

            Agree so much. And funny this weekend Rogue One opens which is exactly how you describe it. Everything about it is to return to ANH and be able to Darth Vader toys again. The film looks good but it feels like such a cynical cash grab for nostalgia to the OT.

            The good news at least its just one movie and they go back to a sequel next. Unfortunately for us Trek fans we get an entire show that will set up TOS while we have a running movie series (I think still) that directly reboots TOS. Can we say enough already?

          • M33

            I do understand that.
            It is surprisingly overkill.
            And I am one who actually likes prequels!

          • Ace Stephens

            I hope it’s not that narrow – to just be about “setting up TOS.” I hope there are some big surprises in store. If they’re really following Fuller’s vision, I get the feeling there will be.

      • Fctiger

        Well if the Discovery ship is any clue on the direction my feeling is they will be deviating A LOT lol. Honestly I hate to tell this to people but don’t look for TOS in terms of inspiration, you probably should be looking at the KT films in this regard. Now I know, different universe blah, blah, blah but it was still mean to fit in with the old one and they just chucked all that.

        OR maybe will get something like the Kelvin itself. Still more advanced on what you saw on TOS but could fit in closer to what we know. And I doubt they will have the TOS uniforms my guess it will be its own look because as Star Trek has proven over and over again they change uniforms pretty often. The TNG crew had the longest voyage and they went through 4 changes basically. Same basic design but something always a bit different. But Fuller already said the look would be ‘reimaging’ so my only guess it will be its own thing but like Enterprise try and the KT films try to fit some things in from the old show. I wouldnt count on a lot.

      • Eric Cheung

        Of course, the ship could be 20 years old, or older, just like the Enterprise was during TOS. If that’s the case, then it could adhere to Kelvin-era aesthetics, or even ENT-era aesthetics. It actually looks like it would fit in either of those time periods, or even in TOS, at least externally.

        • M33

          True enough. There is the established look from the 2230s and the 2250s. It will be interesting to see how they can maybe meet in the middle.

          I wonder if they will use the terms “tapes” and “memory banks”?
          Dated, for sure, but used a lot in TOS, and given that duotronics was the main systems used in starships after the 2240s, thise terms would still apply, unless the Discovery predates it.
          Maybe it would be an acronym?
          TAIPs?

  • SpaceCadet

    Oh hell yeah! I remember when she had a bit role on The Good Wife, then Walking Dead, and now this!

    • Michael

      Diversity is great as long as she can make the part work.
      It’s senseless to hire someone with legs to play football just because they are a minotity.

      • Fctiger

        Um she’s a long time actor and been on plenty of shows including her most famous one The Walking Dead. Anyone a fan of that show is excite for her to be coming on for a reason.

      • Bifash

        “It’s senseless to hire someone with legs to play football just because they are a minotity.”

        Your analogy itself is truly bizarre.

      • SpaceCadet

        Have you seen Star Trek before. Each later series has gotten more and more diverse. You know, a reflection of the real world? And they actually hire people who can act. How does your football analogy apply anyway? The NFL doesn’t recruit people because they’re from a minority but because of their actual playing ability.

        • Michael

          Exactly. Hire the best person for the job. There are far better actresses than her that could fill the role.

          • Fctiger

            You can say that about any role anywhere man. C’mon there is ALWAYS a better actor somewhere. I like you keep us up to date with Dis rumors but you come off insulting with this.

          • Eric Cheung

            As Fctiger says, there are always more actors around. It’s usually only when a character is created and/or cast specifically as not being a straight white male that their talent gets questioned. When there are so many actors out there, that’s hardly a concern of mine. It’s pretty rare when someone so utterly incoherent gets hired, or when a straight white male actor is so much better than someone else would be in a part originally conceived as not straight white male.

            At the risk of bringing him up too much, none of Benedict Cumberbatch’s performances before or after Into Darkness were so special that someone like say the King of Bollywood Shah Rukh Khan, or someone nearly as prominent in Bollywood, couldn’t have equalled him without the whitewashing. Hell, their original choice Benecio Del Toro would have at least been no more white washing than Montalban was but with at least as much talent and charisma as either Cumberbatch or Montalban.

          • SpaceCadet

            Apparently there weren’t or she wouldn’t have gotten the job. I’m going to trust the judgment and expertise of the casting directors on this one and my own personal opinion based on her performances in other works.

  • Locutus

    Two big thumbs up! I am confident she will fit into the Star Trek family perfectly. I liked her on The Walking Dead before I abandoned that show. I’m excited to see what she brings to the character.

  • GIBBS v2

    She is one of the better actors on TWD but that ain’t saying much. I hope she surprises us and the Trek direction is really good. Bring it on!

  • Havenbull

    Is anyone starting to think that they are throwing in diversity just for the sake of diversity at this point? I have nothing against the actress bear in mind, it just seems that they are going beyond the equitable norms.

    • M33

      Remember, Fuller stressed “progressive” many, many times.
      That being said, Star Trek should be a reflection of all of humanity, chosen by their merit, regardless of their superficial appearances.

      • ReveurIngenu

        Wow, that is the epitome of “progressive” thinking. According to this reasoning, one would wonder why they’ve ever bothered to cast a male, much less a white male, in ANY show or movie in the past few decades. So I guess it would make no sense to ever cast another while male in a lead role ever again, since “whites tend to make up only approximately 1/5th” of the international market, and since pretty much every show/movie made now a days is marketed internationally.

        • Fctiger

          Will you shut up. And they have cast three males already.

          Yes no lead role for white males ever again. I guess Tom Cruise is out of work forever.

          • pittrek

            Well in the comics these days Spiderman is a black guy, Iron Man is a black teenage girl, Thor was a woman for a moment and there were rumours about Captain America being gay. So you never know 🙂

          • Fctiger

            Yes and the overwhelming majority of them are still white and none of those look to ever show up on the big screen, at least no time this decade.

          • M33

            I really look forward to Star Trek’s future:
            When people are recognized solely as a PERSON.
            Not what their color is.
            Not what their ethnicity is.
            Not what their ancestry is.
            Not how they look.

            In Star Trek’s future, no one even thinks about it when they meet another human.
            They are just another person.
            That’s it.
            End of story.

          • pittrek

            I fully agree.

          • M33

            To quote Dr. McCoy:
            “It’s amazing we ever got out of the 20th century…”

          • Ace Stephens

            My brain often doesn’t think this way (noting “distinguishing” elements beyond just as a generality cognitively). But I’ve been told I think/perceive in a rather unusual way. I’m sure my brain has the same “subconscious biases” others always note but, if the context (of a specific status/framework/etc.) isn’t immediately relevant to something, sometimes people say, “Describe the person…” and I never even think of race as a descriptor (for, say, the only black guy in a group of white or Korean guys). Gender is less common for me to “gloss over” although I’ve done that before, too. I haven’t played Guess Who in a long time but I think, due to the cartoonish nature and purpose of the game, I could focus contextually in such an instance. People get mad at me sometimes for this type of thinking though. Others say I must have Asperger’s or some form of prosopagnosia. The more goofy/cruel suggest a head injury. Who knows who’s right?

            Certainly my fervent/lengthy replies regarding Star Trek and “literal” interpretations of some statements might lend credence to the Asperger’s realm but, if that’s the case, here’s crossing my fingers for comorbidity! 😛

            But yeah. Living that way now, even the like ten percent of the time I seem to “space out” on realizing noting someone’s skintone as relevant (or, perhaps, even recognizing who is being referred to), doesn’t seem so productive when others seem so caught up on it in many instances. As a result, I find that I think progress on this sort of front will likely take far longer than it would if people would just sort of “stop talking about it” (not that it seems probably that one would ever be able to get the vast majority to agree to doing so at once – obviously, people of certain mentalities will not “drop the subject”). But this seems to be considered a highly controversial/divisive statement to some, as though I am suggesting that we erase the history of given minorities or…something else I’m not saying. So I don’t know what the solution is.

            I certainly don’t think fixating on the subject/s in a manner about distinguishing this minority from that minority or otherwise being purposefully “divisive” helps (increase the idea of inclusiveness since it’s always “by contrast” or similar) but many these days seem to disagree.

            Sometimes people refer to a person some might think is distinguishable by not being a white man or…in a given case, not being a black man or…whatever…and think I must know who they’re talking about and I’m just like “Uh…okay?” Sometimes even with people I cognitively know stand apart. For instance, in the case of Janeway, I know she’s a woman and the series hasn’t had another focal female captain. But while I cognitively recognize this, if Janeway commonly came up in the way that some things in my day-to-day life do, it might not “activate” in my brain sometimes to “take note” of this as a “distinguishing factor.”

            But at least if society was a bit more like me in this regard, I’d be “the weird one” for wholly justifiable reasons.

          • M33

            Totally understand. Hey, My wife sees people the same way. She is quite “colorblind” for lack of a better word. It just doesn’t register. She sees people as people.
            Granted, she’s very unique herself.
            But, hey, that’s one of the many reasons I love her!

          • Ace Stephens

            Captain America was a Nazi in a distorted version of reality played as a twist…

            …but people didn’t like that “diversity” so much.

          • ReveurIngenu

            Wow, when you corner leftists, their only tactic is to resort to insults. Typical.

          • Fctiger

            No seriously you sound like an idiot who thinks white males no longer have a place in Hollywood. How stupid can you sound? I can name dozens of programs where a white actor is the star currently. Can you do that for black, Asian or Latino? Want to have a contest and see who gets farther? Let me know because I will win in a landslide. And you’re seriously moaning about this?

            The only thing you cornered is your idiocy. Prove me wrong, list all the shows you can currently running with any of those people starring? I’ll do you one better you can combine them and see if you get ahead?

            Ready Mr. Corner? I’ll wait for your response.

          • ReveurIngenu

            What’s the point? You’re just going to tell me to stfu and call me stupid. I’m done.

          • Fctiger

            LOL yeah thought so. See right through your silly little act. Moaning and whining about it I tell you to put your money where your mouth is on your ridiculous theory and you’re now ‘done’. Thats all it took, to challenge you actual facts?

            Shocking. 😉

          • Ace Stephens

            Just…don’t speak like this to people if you want them to not “take sides” immediately. This is trolling, whether you realize it or not, to say things you know cause immediate, divisive reactions. Throwing around terms like “leftist” in response to things that may not be wholly that or, even if they are, welcomely characterized as such…that doesn’t help you. It doesn’t help them understand you. It doesn’t help anyone.

        • Ace Stephens

          This is just a massive overreaction to what was stated. If someone tells you they stubbed their toe, do you demand they have their leg amputated?

    • No.

    • SpaceCadet

      How about this show is actually reflecting the real world for once. And by “equitable norms” do you mean mostly white people and a token person of color?

      • M33

        Haha.
        Yeah, Star Trek did have a LOT of white people from California in space!

        • Joe Cool

          All the exterior scenes on alien planets looked a lot like California, too! Even Austin Powers joked about driving along the roads of England and it looking a lot like California.

          • SpaceCadet

            True. But now that this series films in Toronto maybe we’ll get a different variety of scenery, like huge waterfalls!

      • Ace Stephens

        How about this show is actually reflecting the real world for once.

        What precisely do you mean by “reflecting the real world”?

        • SpaceCadet

          Hmm, perhaps that “the real world” includes women and people of color in positions of power and command.

          • Ace Stephens

            Okay, so nothing strictly “representative” – just inclusive?

            I asked because I first thought you might mean something more in the range of “representative” and so, if you meant on a global scale, the suggestion becomes laughable given the limitations on shooting (talent pool, Visas, logistics, etc. – obviously, most of the people in Toronto/LA/NYC that are actors will be white). So at first I questioned that and then I went, “If it’s so far-fetched then surely they simply don’t mean that.”

            But I’ve seen people argue such things before (not in the case of Trek…yet) so that’s why I might have, at first, went, “Wait…that’s not going to be very workable at all.” And that’s why I asked.

            “Reflecting the real world” is…a very vague description when one considers all that goes into “the real world,” even contextually here.

          • SpaceCadet

            Right. I meant the simplest interpretation of the words I used.

          • Ace Stephens

            …That doesn’t include the specifics you outlined. There are women and people of color (and white men) in all sorts of positions in the world and that – particularly further specified as being in positions of power/command – isn’t intrinsically focal to the suggestion that something reflect the real world. So…yeah. I don’t feel it was very clear and I feel a bit like, now, you’re sidestepping truly locking in on specifics regarding the subject. Because, as far as the context I see, there’s no way for what you specified to reasonably be construed as “the simplest interpretation of the words I used.”

          • SpaceCadet

            You asked your question and I answered it. No need to go digging for something that isn’t there.

          • Ace Stephens

            Go digging in what sense? Yes, you answered. Upon attempting to confirm the nature of that answer, I simply pointed out why I asked to begin with since I felt it might have been unclear…but then you replied with something that appeared inaccurate regarding your previous claim. So I pointed that out.

          • SpaceCadet

            “Inaccurate” in your opinion. “Digging” in the sense that I answered your question already and now you’re doubting the sincerity of that answer to insinuate that I my original answer must have meant something else. It doesn’t. My original answer stands. I’m not going to prolong this empty conversation with you. Done. Move on.

          • Ace Stephens

            I wasn’t doubting the sincerity. I was proclaiming my clear lack of understanding on this matter and how, to an extent, I don’t see the relevance so the manner in which some things have been addressed appears as things like “sidestepping” or the like.

            I wish you would treat me well enough to offer me the benefit of a doubt, as you seem to clearly offer yourself regarding presuming clarity, and simply help me understand.

            I noted why I asked, that I was hoping you didn’t mean “representative” – you seemed to address this to the extent that you said “right” but then seemed to be referring to your original statement as though it was clear in suggesting that power/command was a focal element. Which I don’t believe is anywhere near the case. Were you referring to a different statement (the first reply)? What exactly did you mean? What am I missing here?

    • ReveurIngenu

      Definitely my feeling. This is the Star Trek for those who want something “safe” to watch while they stay in their safe spaces and echo chambers. This is a show for those who feel like it’s time the “oppressed” minorities have a chance to shine. This is for those who feel every non-white, non-male minority must be catered to because anything otherwise would be racist, misogynist, sexist, homophoic. This is a show to help Hillary supporters get over the election. That’s what this show is.

      • Fctiger

        Get over yourself. I mean seriously. What the hell would the internet have been like if it was around in 1966 when TOS premiered? I hate to think about it.

        • SpaceCadet

          Well the 1960s version of the internet message boards was the fan (hate) mail. Nichelle Nichols likes to tell the story of a letter written to the producers of Star Trek from a white man from the South who complained about the historic interracial kiss between Kirk and Uhura. He didn’t like it but even he had to begrudgingly admit that if anyone was going to kiss Uhura it was going to be a red-blooded American male like Kirk. So even bigots back then were making baby steps to accepting equality!

          • Fctiger

            LOL yeah I heard that story too. And yes fan mail was the thing back then but even then you had to have really committed people to take the time out to write directly to the show. Now any idiot with an internet connection can let their thoughts out in literally seconds around the world so you have to put up with a whole lot more. I’m not downing the internet that would currently make me a hypocrite lol but I wish people who says this crap online behind the keys of a computer had the balls to say it in the open. I make it a point I don’t say anything on the internet I wouldn’t say in the open. That keeps me honest at least and not a troll who just unleashes whatever crap hits their brain and press send.

          • SpaceCadet

            That’s a great attitude and as it should be.

            And I found the clip of Nichelle and that story if you or anyone else hasn’t already seen it. Such a charming lady.

            https://youtu.be/gRfRXcP1Gsg

          • Fctiger

            LOL I saw this clip before too. Yeah I consume a lot of this stuff. This was fairly recent right? Like within the last year IIRC. Great clip.

          • SpaceCadet

            Well, I see that the clip was uploaded to YouTube 6 years ago so the interview is at least that old.

            It’s nice to know that we’ve still got 4 of TOS cast still alive and kicking. I think it would be pretty cool and a nice touch if they could somehow have minor roles or at least cameos on DSC. Obviously it wouldn’t make sense to play elderly versions of their original characters as this is a prequel but they can always do stuff like an admiral or an ambassador, etc.

          • Fctiger

            OK I was waaaaay off!

            And yeah it would be nice to see someone from TOS on this show for a cameo. But thats why I never understand why do a prequel??? You just completely cut yourself off from all those characters from TOS to Voyager who can put in an appearance. I mean sure they can put in an appearance here but they can’t play their characters they would have to be someone else as you said. Thats why TNG and DS9 era was great they could bring on all the TOS characters and either they were older or some bizarre accident brought them there like Scotty in a transporter or Kirk in the Nexus. Here it will probably be too hard and will take people out of the show if George Takei shows up playing an ancestor of Sulu or something.

          • SpaceCadet

            I was disappointed in yet another prequel concept as well. I would, as it seems many others do, prefer a post-TNG/DS9/VGR series to continue on where we left off. Or even the era between where TOS movies ended and TNG began because that is a lot of uncovered territory too and still moves us back closer to the TNG era that we’re all more recently familiar with. But for whatever reason, Bryan Fuller wanted us to go back in time again to an era where the Klingons are central and as the main adversary to the Federation. Oh well. Maybe the series after this coming one we’ll be back in the 24th or even 25th century!

          • Ace Stephens

            But for whatever reason, Bryan Fuller wanted us to go back in time again…

            I get the impression that, due to what has been claimed, he did this to cover something that was left unclear in continuity regarding its specifics…and that, despite the “retread” potential of the concept, his overall intention might be to “open things up.”

            Plus, you can still do an arc where, for instance (I don’t friggin’ know…), Tuvok shows up due to some time distortion. And the episodes can play it straight like “the show” doesn’t realize this is some big deal and the guy’s from the future even though he’s clearly from somewhere else. New fans might not know and will discover it as the characters do. Old fans would and might obviously enjoy being ahead of that “revelation.” The whole idea could be he was trying not to disrupt the timeline. I don’t know. It could be in there somewhere or, given the nature of this show, just a brief cameo in Season 1 that they address more fully when season 2 switches over to another ship. Whatever. I’m sure they can come up with something better than that but maybe in that sort of realm.

            So, indeed, they can still do things like that. I don’t know why people think they can’t. It’s like people project the limitations of their own imagination or conception of “what Star Trek can be” (given various variables they assume must be present, even if they don’t know that for a fact) onto the show’s potential.

          • pittrek

            Actually it’s really old. I watched the “Roddenberry vault” yesterday and I was shocked by her overall appearance and apparent mental problems. It was really sad to see one of your childhood heroes like that 🙁

      • Bifash

        What a spectacularly SILLY comment you make.

        • StuUK

          When the social evolution of our species has crossed that point where skin colour, ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual preference and perhaps even political biases… – when all of that interest is secondary (if not ignorable) to the talent and skills that someone offers a project, only then will we know that we’ve entered the next chapter of civilisation. – Seems that we still have some ways to go.

          • Fctiger

            You mean like….on Star Trek? 😉

            Yes we still have a way to go. Hopefully it won’t take another 300 years to get there though.

          • StuUK

            Absolutely like on Star Trek.

            I know that 300 years sounds like a long time but in the epic tale that is “The Human Story” it probably isn’t… And evolution is slow.

            I firmly believe that Star Trek as a staple of pop culture, its global reach, the fact that its appeal appears able to cross generation gaps, its (broadly) positive outlook, its portrayal of a polished human condition, its moral high ground; it all services the public consciousness in ways that if nothing else points us somewhere in the right direction. The smart thing is that, to the audience at large it’s messages are somewhat subtle and it’s able to preach those values under the guise of entertainment.

          • ReveurIngenu

            Thank you! Comment upvoted.

      • SpaceCadet

        Um, what? Are you actually a fan of Star Trek and have actually watched it before or are you just an internet troll who needlessly interjected a divisive Trump vs. Hillary debate when none was called for. Star Trek has always been progressive. I guess you must have been equally bothered when there was that Star Trek series with the Black captain and that other Star Trek series with the woman captain. And if you don’t like it, don’t watch. No loss really.

        • Fctiger

          I get SO sick of this BS. This is 2016. If they cast a white person or actually more to the point a white male NO ONE would say a damn word. A black woman “Oh looks like the PC brigade is here” or “Feminazi strikes again”. I wish they would shut the $@&% up. I’m sorry I do. Why can’t we just be happy we have an actor people are genuinely excited about? This is Star Trek, its kind of famous for having minorities on it, casting Nichelle Nichols as the first major black woman in prime time. And literally 50 years later these people are still moaning about it.

          • SpaceCadet

            I feel like there are people out trolling the internet just to troll, and/or it’s a minority (ironically) of people that are very vocally against anything that reflects diversity because somehow it’s anti-white. Typically it’s from certain individuals who feel empowered to complain behind the anonymity of their computers or under their white robes.

          • Fctiger

            Yeah thats what we have to remember, it is a minority. Remember all the moaning and ‘boycotts’ over The Force Awakens because they had the nerve to have a black man and a white woman as the leads? You already mentioned it but it boycotted its way to $2 billion lol. So yeah MOST people don’t care about this crap. I have enough faith in humanity…now that most people have become colorblind to casting long ago and why they still do very well. There actually was concern when Brooks got the role as Sisko and Mulgrew as Janeway that those shows would suffer in the ratings. They fell but not because of them and both became very successful because most Trek fans celebrate diversity not get angry about it like these trolls.

          • SpaceCadet

            Exactly, and no amount of their naysaying and negativity is going to affect the way the series is cast or from being a success. :o)

          • ReveurIngenu

            You talk about the world being colorblind when it’s the EXACT opposite. They hire minorities BECAUSE they are minorities, their skin color is the primary reason why they are hired. And yet you have the gall to claim that the world is “colorblind”? Maybe you you start trying to see that those that are complaining about this PC crap are doing so BECAUSE the world sees things through tinted glasses!

          • Fctiger

            You are disgusting. Real piece of work. White people get hired because they are right for the job. Anyone else purely because they are a minority. People like you are disgusting. Truly.

          • Justin Olson

            Uh, no. Their ability to act convincingly in front of a camera and under hot lights in front of dozens of people staring at them is the primary reason why they are hired. If that weren’t the case, it would create unacceptable delays and cost the production money.

            Further, casting directors can only provide lists of actors to producers, writers, and directors according to what the scripts specify. If gender and age is specified, as it often is, they provide a list of actors of that gender and age range who are available. Same with ethnicity. If ethnicity isn’t specified in the script, the default is assumed to be white. That’s been a persistent problem since the very, very beginning of cinema.

            Unfortunately, still to this day, most writers and producers in Hollywood are white males and they overwhelmingly create stories that mirror themselves, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

            Only now is it just beginning to change (incrementally) as more women, ethnic minorities, and LGBTQ persons are hired as writers and producers and they craft stories that better reflect themselves and their own life experiences as white males have historically done.

            Hopefully, consciousness is raised generally overall, and as a result even straight white males may begin to write stories that are more inclusive and diverse and reflective of the world around us. Because inclusion and diversity isn’t a zero-sum game, after all.

          • ReveurIngenu

            No, their acting ability is secondary to their being the right color or gender. If the casting directors want a black person, they’ll exclude all except black. They’ll take a black that can act, but the primary characteristic will be being black.

            This obsession with inclusivity is why saying Merry Christmas is forbidden (because not inclusive of non-Christians apparently). The disire for “diversity” and “inclusivity” should not prevail over everything else or be the driving force behind the creations of characters.

          • Fctiger

            You have a lot of issues. Oh and Merry Christmas. I’m now waiting for the cops to bust down my door.

          • Justin Olson

            “A black?”

            Again, it’s not about what the casting directors want, it’s about what the writer/producers want based on the requirements of the role as laid out in the script (which they wrote). The creators are primarily interested in finding a great actor who can nail the role who ALSO fits the look they want. If they primarily cared about ethnicity to the minimization of all other factors, they would just hire the first actor that comes through the door that has the right amount of melanin in their skin.

            Why do you think they give the actors sides and go to the trouble of holding auditions? Why do you think it’s taken this long to cast Sonequa Martin-Green? It only takes a few weeks, maybe a month at most to finalize the contract. But they are MONTHS behind schedule because they wanted to find exactly the right person as the lead character. And there is a hell of a lot more to a person than their goddamn skin tone!

          • Ace Stephens

            I think you’re oversimplifying this.

          • Ace Stephens

            Where is your evidence of this accusation’s applicability here? Certainly Fuller indicated he would prefer to go this route but I never got the impression it was so exclusive as to somehow be nearing “tokenism” (which is roughly what I would suggest you are referring to here).

          • ReveurIngenu

            Right, it’s so easy to accuse everyone who dare say something you don’t agree with as being a troll. Stay in your echo chamber. I hope when you are confronted to the real world and to differing view points, you won’t be so traumatized as to claim yourself a victim.

          • Fctiger

            You’re the idiot in the ‘echo chamber’. You have spent every message here saying white people are superior and the only one who can do the job. Go to hell.

          • ReveurIngenu

            Wrong, all the PC liberals would be complaining that yet another white male took the lead. But hey, lets continue hiring based on skin color or gender instead of based on merit or talent. That’s the way the world so be, right?

          • Fctiger

            STFU! When did a ‘PC liberal’ complain when a white guy got into a completely new role??? Name any in the last year?

            And yes lets pretend only white males are entitled to having every role available on the basis on being a white male. Thhats only happened the first 50 years of movie making. Shut up.

          • Ace Stephens

            When did a ‘PC liberal’ complain when a white guy got into a completely new role??? Name any in the last year?

            Matt Damon in The Great Wall. I mean, there are examples. But, of course, everyone thinks they have their justifications. “No, but it’s wrong because…” across the board.

      • Justin Olson

        I give this comment 2 out of 5 Breitbarts.

      • Ace Stephens

        I gather that I understand your point. I feel your rhetoric here does a disservice to it, however, as you seem intent to post things which – reasonably – you must know are divisive. When people start proclaiming “PC” and “echo chambers” and all this, they often are reducing extremely complicated concepts to narrow talking points which enable others to quickly either align or dispute.

        You don’t want a show manufactured to falsely inhabit some idea of what might be thought to constitute a “progressive” view (right?). If it’s going to do it, it should just do it but not constrain itself to do so or pander or otherwise artificially cling to something outside of its own necessities. That sort of thing. Many of the other people here seem to not feel that it is approaching this matter in a false manner or otherwise how you view it. I gather it’s as simple as that. In my case, I get your point and can see how you might view it that way (even though I disagree with its potential applicability here). In the case of many others, they feel you must be a troll outright or a bigot in some fashion. I think this is the third such comment I have written in reply to you to tell you I think I get your point. Not everybody here is so prone to kneejerk responses as to miss your point for fear of not being first to condemn a potential bigot (or whatever one might suggest has been happening here).

        However, I would implore you not to use such divisive rhetoric or bring “party politics” (or similar) so overtly into matters where it has no primary relevance (even if there is thought to be some relationship between matters). It ultimately helps polarize people unnecessarily and makes it easier for many to write you off as “trolling” or the like. I know you might think, “But it’s true!” or similar but your stance as stated here is clearly inflammatory.

    • Fctiger

      As opposed to just having more white people for white people sake? Why is it always ok to put in 10 white people in a show or film but if you add 2-3 minorities with it suddenly people question the casting?

      Did you know despite the fact every Star Trek show from TOS to Enterprise ALL had diverse casts there was always more white people than anything else? Every one. Can’t we just have a few members of other people since we know its still going to be a mostly white cast end of the day?

      • pittrek

        “Can’t we just have a few members of other people to represent the world
        which Star Trek is kind of the point since we know its still going to be
        a mostly white cast end of the day?”
        1) To be fair – there’s just one straight white man in the cast right now.
        2) I always thought that the message of Star Trek is “it doesn’t matter what colour your skin is, or what your sex and sexual preferences are, the only important thing is what kind of person you are inside”. But in the recent years it looks like all movies and TV shows in Hollywood are cast by charts and not by talent, the ONLY thing which should matter. If I was American and a part of minority, and I was given a job BECAUSE I belong to a minority, I would feel insulted.

        • Cpt. Ley

          That is a very popular argument that confuses the dimensions of creating a tv show. You have to distinguish:
          1) Within the fictional world of Trek, people are equal, everybody has the same rights and chances, skin color does not affect those.
          2) When creating a tv show, however, every decision is purposefully made, including roles and characters – therefore, casting has never been an arbitrary process. If you want to show a world in which color does not matter, you deliberately have to create a diverse cast.

          • pittrek

            “If you want to show a world in which color does not matter, you deliberately have to create a diverse cast.”

            Isn’t it something like “fighting for peace”? 🙂 I mean I do understand what you are trying to say, but I’m not sure if I agree.

          • Cpt. Ley

            Sometimes you have to fight for peace, no? 🙂 Change is a proactive process. And art is an artificial product that cannot escape its political nature.

        • Fctiger

          1. Key word is ‘right now’.

          2. It doesn’t…and yet the majority of people on the show is actually white. How does that happen on literally EVERY show if its not about color? This is what gets missed no matter WHAT the balance is always in the favor of a white actor. Most of us accept this, its how it is, but then when we simply say it would be nice to have more than 1 minority and 9 white people we are trying to be ‘PC’ or ‘racist’. How are we being either???

          Do people think the world is made out of 90% white people? Its clearly an over balance in representation every time. Can you imagine if Trek had 90% black, Asian or Latino strictly on the basis its just about the characters? People would lose their mind.

          And yet if just one more role goes to someone not white suddenly they are being eradicated out of Hollywood. Can people seriously NOT hear themselves? Its OK, ACCEPTABLE, to have 1 or 2 minorities but no more than that. If the same show drops below 50% of white actors the world is coming to an end. Again people are so biased they have no idea how they sound.

    • Bifash

      Have you even ever WATCHED Star Trek???

      • SpaceCadet

        I have a feeling a lot of trolls are going to come out of the woodworks in the following days/weeks/months regarding the diversity of the casting. It’s like all of that nonsense I heard in the media of certain people wanting to boycott Star Wars: The Force Awakens because the leads weren’t white males. I mean, seriously? Of course we all know how well that “boycott” turned out. Lol!

        • Fctiger

          Sadly we are hearing it now for Rogue One. You don’t want to be on boards like IMDB where those animals seem to think society has fallen in place of feminism because they had the nerve to cast another girl in a lead. WTF is wrong with these people?

          • Ace Stephens

            I found it incredibly “troubling” (from that socially-focused perspective) that we went from “endless” white men as leads (which makes more sense when we have the context of biological offspring) to a white woman we don’t know the parentage of (so why did she need to be white? Of course, because of their current storytelling style, this will almost certainly be “explained” later…)…followed by another white woman. Why? You have so many “types” of people – far more in Star Wars than we even come close to having on Earth. It just doesn’t make sense. I certainly understand keeping it centered on humans – or the overtly “humanoid” – for now but seriously?

            It’s like saying, “We’ve gotta be inclusive but let’s get to the white women first.” I found it rather…awkward and patronizing in those regards. It just felt like Kathleen Kennedy wanted to see herself onscreen more.

            I already had enough of (what I perceive as) Lucas wanting to see himself onscreen – I don’t need it from her now beyond the evident Rey. I don’t know why Jyn couldn’t have been Chinese or African or something other than a skinny young white woman. They could certainly, in the case of a franchise as large as Star Wars (even if Rogue One is a “new kind of Star Wars movie”) pad out enough of the rest of the cast that the money-counters’ potential “demographic” alienation fears would be overcome.

            So yes, I have complained about that and I guess “what’s wrong with me” is I want Star Wars to be more diverse/inclusive regarding its primary protagonists in live-action theatrical releases.

            (Obviously, I realize this isn’t what you’re addressing and you may think I just live to be a contrarian but I just wanted to show you that there are people out there who opposed that for…other reasons. And I’m not trying to be contrarian as these are my genuine beliefs. If you’re going to try to be inclusive after six movies where it’s a white guy lead but one in their own trilogy means the other must be…having two unrelated ones who are white women in a row just seems statistically so immensely improbable as to baffle me unless the presumption is white as a default in terms of the formation of a “character” – which I dislike quite thoroughly. Either that or maybe Jyn is meant to be related to Rey in some form and that just…I really hate that style of storytelling – presenting a “mystery” to begin with yet having no relevant clues with things truly left as open-ended as possible and then later on throwing in a relative twist or add-on and pretending it was somehow there all along in terms of its relevance as a “potential solution to the mystery” when it plainly wasn’t yet that’s what we were teased regarding.)

        • ReveurIngenu

          That’s all you people ever have to say. “I don’t agree with what you have to say, so you’re a troll”. Ever stopped to think that maybe having a different opinion doesn’t make you a troll, that maybe there’s something wrong with thinking that all those who don’t agree with you are trolls? I just don’t know how any one could live like that.

          • SpaceCadet

            No, I’m all for sensible, intelligent discussions that have actual merit. I just happen to live in the real world where the people I work with, have as customers, and count as friends are not all white males but also include women, people of color, and gays and lesbians. Television is just more recently catching up to that and Star Trek is continuing to do that. How horrible for you to have to face that in your entertainment viewing. Can’t handle that? It’ll be okay. Just change the channel or don’t pay for the streaming service. And don’t come back to these message boards when more casting announcement include women and ethnic minorities. You obviously don’t get what Star Trek is about.

          • ReveurIngenu

            Oh,ok, so me not wanting the skin color or minority status of someone to be the primary factor in the casting of a role = me wanting only whites ? I don’t mind people of color or minoriites, women or gays (favorite Trek is Voyager and I don’t consider myself hetero, and SURPRISE, I’m not even white!), but when you add minorities simply for the sake of having minorities, when you try to establish of list of all possibile minorities and try to cast one for each of those, that’s when I have a problem.

            It is neither organic, is overly PC, and just plan stupid. But if you only see in that criticism the desire to only have white males, there isn’t much else I can do or say.

          • Then perhaps this circular argument can end here – thank you.

          • SpaceCadet

            You’re just not getting it. My whole point is if they cast only white males you wouldn’t even be posting complaints because obviously that would be okay because somehow that is normal and not politically correct and the automatic default. Cast one woman or a gay character or someone of color, and you’re all, “oh no, they’re caving into the political correctness bullies!” Boo hoo. Like I keep saying, Star Trek has always been about progressiveness and diversity. Why are you all of a sudden crying about it now.

          • Fctiger

            Thank you, well said. Everyone can see this guy’s agenda. And I buy he’s not white about as much as I buy Donald Trump is going to get Mexico to pay for a wall.

          • Hi, let’s leave US political discussion to other venues – thanks.

          • Ace Stephens

            I understand your concern but I don’t think it’s applicable here. While those behind this production certainly wish to be inclusive, I do not feel they are doing something involving a “quota.” I find it unfortunate that people don’t realize that when they go, “Oh, sure, you’re not a troll but…” and write off what you’re saying due to generalizing your views as bigoted in some fashion despite no direct evidence (just inferences and the limitations of their perception of the varied views/interpretations that exist in the world and such things)…they’re just emphasizing your point. That is, that it isn’t trolling or bigoted intrinsically to express concern regarding how these matters are handled which doesn’t wholly align with what many seem to believe they are “supposed to” think.

        • Ace Stephens

          That boycott was mostly trolls. So not as many as some might believe actually engaged in it, then it got reported as “news,” then others freaked out about it, then trolls went “People freaking out? I’m in!” and pushed more buttons. Still socially distressing in many forms but perhaps not the ways many think.

    • October_1985

      Well, that’s just tipical. We are used to watch shows and movies everywhere with an almost all white-male cast and nobody says a damm thing. Cast a black woman, a chinese woman, and a gay character and racists everywhere start throwing a fit. No matter how you try to put it (equitable norms? wtf is that?), that kind of comments are racist. I’m always suprised to find racism, bigotry or intolerance between Star Trek fans, somehow it doesn’t belong, or should belong.

    • pittrek

      I do, but I don’t see it as a problem. Star Trek was always “diverse”, it’s one of its core principals.

    • How so?

    • GIBBS v2

      The casting selections are a combination of factors in various degrees. Talent and Personality narrows it down then factors like diversification of the cast and marketing are weighed in. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. Example Donnie Yen in Rogue One. Talented guy, huge in Asia. Disney know’s Rogue One will be a harder sell in general, the largest emerging market for films is China, you damn right they put a face (2) in there to help sell in those markets. The same considerations are being made for Star Trek. It is a global brand like Star Wars trying to grow in markets. Netflix/CBS knows this very well, Marco Polo is an example of a product trying to be a hit in all these markets. China was one of a only a few markets that actually grew Star Trek Beyonds box office.

    • Admiral SnackBar

      Of course, this comment thread inevitably goes to the “white male default” whine. Times have changed. TV has changed. We’re all moving forward.

    • Eric Cheung

      Here are some words from this article on the subject (http://tpr.org/post/some-directions-george-takei#stream/0):

      Takei told Ophira Eisenberg on the Bell House stage in Brooklyn. “The Starship Enterprise [was] a metaphor for Starship Earth… [Sulu] was devised as an Asian character. [Roddenberry] wanted to find a name that was Pan Asian, that suggested all of Asia. And he found off the coast of the Philippines the Sulu Sea, and he thought, “Ahhh, the waters of a sea touch all shores.”
      ————————————————-
      Basically, it’s always been a part of Star Trek, since at least the second pilot. I also think of another quote, from Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She was asked when she thought there would be enough women on the Supreme Court. She said “When there are nine.”

      What that means is that representation has been dominated for so long by straight white religious men that there’s no reason that the limit on “equitable norms” should be based on the current demographics, when they never have been in the past. There’s no reason there shouldn’t be a Trek show that never has a white man in it, given TNG and DS9 didn’t have East Asians in the cast, and TOS, TNG, DS9, and ENT didn’t have Latinx crew in the regular cast. And none of the shows portrayed gay characters until Beyond.

      • Joe Cool

        I think William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy and Walter Koenig were all Jewish. Just so happened — and it wasn’t any indication that 3/7ths of Earth future population ends up being Jewish. It just worked out that way, for whatever reason.

        Point being, it’s really hard to have an exact statistically accurate portrayal of any gender, race, religion, etc. in any small group of people. On a global level, sure, averages end up being just that — averages. But from one TV show to one city to one company, it’s never going to be exactly along statistically accurate demographics.

        • Eric Cheung

          That’s the thing. It’s not anywhere near representative on a global level. So, it’s incumbent on new shows to compensate for the dominance of white media of the past by telling so many different stories of the underrepresented that something close to parity can be achieved. That’s why I brought up the RGB quote.

        • Fctiger

          And no one is saying it should be an accurate representation just *some* representation. Thats all. I mean white people make up less than 10% of people on the planet and yet on the show they are usually 60%. And same for nationality, America only represents 5% of the population and yet they usually represent 50% on the show and every Captain has been American minus Picard.

          And look, all of that is fine. Its an American show at the end of the day. The great majority who watches Star Trek are usually Americans. And in America the majority is white so of course I EXPECT the actors to be mostly white. I don’t have a single issue with that. All people are saying Star Trek is a show that is SUPPOSE to represent the world. So even if you can’t squeeze 200 nations into 10 cast members, you can at least find people that represent differences just the same. That what TOS was: Sulu represented Asia, Uhura Africa, Scotty Europe, Chekhov the Eastern block and so on. Its already paining with a broad brush but that was what Star Trek was. And yet even then in terms of race they were mostly white because yeah America is mostly white, especially then.

          But its just funny these people moaning don’t seem to understand this. Star Trek has been doing it from the beginning. They highlight it less because the world has become a bit more inclusive but its ALWAYS been there period. These people are watching the wrong show if they dont get this by now.

          • Ace Stephens

            I wouldn’t mind a Chinese-centered iteration of Star Trek (produced in China with cooperation with the necessary parties) in Mandarin where 40% of the cast is Chinese and the rest is made up of people from random backgrounds otherwise. I would genuinely watch this. I doubt most random US Trek fans would unless it was “adapted” in some broader sense. But I’d just need subtitles.

            I really wouldn’t mind something of this nature occurring but I know that, even with China becoming more prevalent in terms of consumers of entertainment media, the logistics now are nowhere near allowing it.

          • Joe Cool

            Like you said, it’s an American TV show that was made for an American audience. If we were watching a Korean sci-fi show set in the future , more than likely most of the cast would be Korean. There might be a token American on there, lol . . . . And my guess is the official language in outer space would also be Korean. 😉

          • Fctiger

            Uh, what?

            I never suggested it should be a different cast of non-Americans. But Americans doesn’t mean ‘white’ either right? People who had ancestors from every part of the world are Americans. Thats the beauty of being American, so it should just be more than one segment of Americans even if the cast is still mostly from there.

    • DamienL

      Does diversity scare you? And please define equitable norms…

    • jstimson

      Um, what?
      Don’t you mean to say “Is anyone thankful that they are finally showing diversity in the ideal Trek way it should be?”.

      I work in a high tech job and, although there is a slight majority of white males in most areas, the number of different races and genders is increasing across the board. This is a reality now, not 200 years from now, but now.

      If anything, Trek has been slow on the uptake after having once been the forerunner in this area. It’s time for Trek to regain its message.

  • Michael

    A great PC pick, but will it work for Star Trek? She has the look the part needs – conflicted Lt. commander who is torn between Starfleet and Section 31. She has the look for it, homely and forlorn.

    I hope she knows what a ride she is in for, 😉

    • Fctiger

      Unless you are casting for the show or know what the part contains stop pretending you have a clue. I think the people who created the actual character and story line would have more knowledge about it, right?

      • Michael

        I know what the part is from my source. I can’t reveal it yet. It’s my opinion he casting is good because her character is evil and good at the same time. She looks evil, but also tormented because of what she is doing for Section 31

        • Fctiger

          Ok fine. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on this but again unless you sat in the room audition no one truly knows. Interesting info though. Man I hope you’re right because you are throwing a lot out there no one else seems to have anywhere. How do you even get away with it? I know they read boards like this for our reactions.

    • SpaceCadet

      What’s so PC about it? Star Trek has always been about being progressive and creating firsts. Were captains Sisko and Janeway great “PC picks”?

      • Bifash

        I bet it galled him to see Sisko and Worf as Star Trek leads in that show: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/acb9fe6931b892eab291f3a408d296617417a63980d1886f870647653306b6fc.jpg

        • SpaceCadet

          Haha. Arguably the best of all of the Star Trek series too!

          • pittrek

            I can’t agree. They had to invent a war with another quadrant to make it interesting, the first seasons were more boring than the first seasons of TNG.

          • Fctiger

            In your opinion of course. DS9 is still my favorite Trek show by a mile. If Discovery gets anywhere close to that series we are in for a treat.

          • pittrek

            Of course, everything here are just opinions.

        • Michael

          I loved these guys, what are you talking about?

          • SpaceCadet

            He was responding to your comment that Sonequa is a “PC pick”. How is she any less a “PC pick” then Avery Brooks is to be the first ever lead of color on a Star Trek series? No, it’s just reflecting equality and diversity in the future.

        • pittrek

          Wow, great photo, but what’s wrong with the lighting? Sisko looks so orange

      • Michael

        No, they were not PC picks back then because liberals then were not as unhinged as they are these days.

        • Eric Cheung

          Hindsight usually renders the goalposts moved on such achievements. What was controversial then is remembered through rose-colored glasses now. Attacks on diverse casting being some kind of liberal activism in Trek is as old as Trek itself.

        • SpaceCadet

          Ah, the famous unhinged liberals argument. I guess henceforth no woman, person of color, LGBT person or character can be cast or created in entertainment because those darn tootin’ Hollyweird liberals are shoving it down the throats of the rest of us regular folk. ‘murica!

          • Michael

            Based on how shameful and childish the liberals are behaving during our transition to a new President, I would say my comment about liberals being unhinged is accurate. I have NEVER seen liberals so unhinged and offensive.

          • Let’s leave US political discussion to other venues – thanks.

          • Michael

            Wow, sensitive. Must have voted Billary.

          • SpaceCadet

            No, I think the moderator is respectfully and politely asking you to keep your political opinions to yourself because it is a divisive topic and really has no place in this forum. But for whatever reason you keep wanting to rant about it.

          • Michael

            It does not have to be decisive at all. You can talk about it without it being so. Star Trek has always had commentary on American politics. Star Trek: The undiscovered country for example

          • SpaceCadet

            Exactly, it doesn’t have to be decisive but ironically your very own language and tone on here calling out “unhinged”, “shameful”, “childish” liberals is doing just that. Maybe you should keep your political biases and who you favored in the US election to yourself? You know, Star Trek in general is very liberal so are you actually enjoying it?

          • Michael

            I am simply pointing out the facts regarding how the Democrats are acting after the election. They have not been taking their huge loss very well. So yes, I defend my stance that they are unhinged, shameful, and childish. I won’t fully explain why here as to not clutter up the discussion.

            I never keep my preferences regarding politics secret. There is no reason to keep it secret.

            Star Trek is liberal, yes. But it also has deep conservative values in it as well. It is a true American show.

          • M33

            I’ll give you that. Star Trek is very American in its approach, and its core is very Kennedy Democrat in its values, a product of its time.

          • Michael

            But they are unhinged. See: everything they do since the election.

          • SpaceCadet

            Again, why you are interjecting your own political biases and feelings into a discussion of this series? Is there some vast left-wing conspiracy to subliminally manipulate the minds of the Star Trek viewers that the public at large needs to be alerted about? Please, give us all the scoop if you have insider information.

      • Michael

        If they picked another white male or even a white rename everyone would be up in arms about lack of diversity. You know it as well as everyone here.

        • Eric Cheung

          Well, yeah, and rightly so. The part has always been described as a woman of color. So to cast this character as a white male, or even a white female would go against that original intent. It would suggest Fuller’s vision was compromised, possibly by people at the top. That he got his wish is a good sign for the show.

        • SpaceCadet

          What Eric said. This casting choice was always intended to be a woman of color. Why, probably because we’ve already has 3 white male leads. After awhile it gets a bit repetitive and unimaginative.

    • Eric Cheung

      Homely and forlorn? I guess I’m looking at a totally different array of pictures. She seems happy and rocks a different awesome hairstyle in every photo.

      • SpaceCadet

        Agreed. I think she’s quite pretty and expressive. The pic of her used for this posting just isn’t the most glam one of her.

    • I’m really hoping you don’t know what homely means… because she is far from homely.

      • SpaceCadet

        Haha. I was thinking the same thing. If she’s “homely”, then those are some pretty lofty standards for what’s considered beautiful!

  • Captain Lucille

    She comes across as one of the best actors on the Walking Dead, which is impressive, as she has a smaller role. I’m happy they got a very talented young actor as the lead, regardless of her ethnicity.

  • Captain Lucille

    As to some of the predictable reactions, I’m a white male who is getting fed up with those white males who think they’re standing up to “political correctness” – when really they’re just being insecure schmucks. If the inevitable winds of change scare you, retreat back to the 98 episode comfort of your Scott Bakula and Connor Trinneer, please.

    • Michael

      So you are saying it’s bad to hire white males for roles, even if they fit the part and are talented? Why the Scott and Connor hate?

      • SpaceCadet

        I don’t see him hating on those actors at all. Bakula and Trinneer were white actors hired to play white characters. The lead for this show will be an actress of color because the character was conceived as a woman of color. And that’s because it’s never been done before on a Star Trek series. Not such a difficult concept to get.

      • Bifash

        Can you not see the complete and utter irony of what you are stating?

      • Fctiger

        I loved both Trip and Archer and I’m a black guy. I was shouting up and down when I heard Scott Bakula was on a Star Trek show.

        • Io Jupiter

          Sorry, but every time I look at Archer I see him wearing a dress (Quantum Leap).

          • DamienL

            God forbid a man wore a dress once

          • M33

            Hey, Jack Lemmon wore a dress…

          • Fctiger

            LOL!

    • OnlyManWhoCan

      Brian K. Vaughn, the writer of the peerless comic Saga, said in an interview that writing as a white male he found it all too easy to view ‘white’ as the ‘norm,’ even though he was writing a space opera with no connection to Earth.

      The tone of a lot of comments (even comments supportive of ‘diverse’ casting) certainly seem to forget that white is not the standard of planet Earth and we are all just one race: human.

      • ReveurIngenu

        That’s EXACTLY what those who are against casting based on skin-color, gender, or minority say! Yet we are demonized as being trolls! We should not be hiring someone just because of their gender or skin-color, yet that’s exactly what is happening and being passed off as “progressive”.

        • SpaceCadet

          You must be trolling and don’t understand or have never seen Star Trek. The whole point of the show even from the original series was to show different races and genders working together without anyone batting an eye. Basically you’re saying Uhura shouldn’t have been cast as a Black female because they were giving in to political correctness. Sounds like the only way you would shut up is if the new show was cast with all white males. Because that would be so realistic. There have been three white male captains already. Time for something different. All of your incessant whining won’t change a thing. Don’t like it, don’t watch.

          • Binyamin Koretz

            Uhura was not “cast as a Black female”. She is a Black female. She was cast as a communications officer of presumably East African (and not African-American) origin.

          • SpaceCadet

            Thanks for the specificity, but my point was that the show was specifically casting a woman of color to respresent diversity and equality in the future.

          • Binyamin Koretz

            I agree, and of course in 1966 that was remarkable in and of itself.

          • Fctiger

            Exactly! Thats the point and nothing wrong with that. But same time if they just made a white guy a Captain most of us wouldn’t care either since we have sort of seen it before. 😉

            This is new though I guess. Most of them will get over it once it runs like they did for Mulgrew when she became Janeway.

          • SpaceCadet

            You’d think people would already be over it having grown up with DS9 and VOY over the past 20 years! But then we live in some pretty divided times now.

          • ReveurIngenu

            We can really tell the maturity in your arguments. Anyone who dares criticize criticizes because they want an all-male all-white cast. It’s either we say we agree with you or we want an extreme, there’s never any in-between.

            As for telling me to not watch if I don’t like, don’t worry, I won’t, but it won’t be because I’m following your order. I just don’t understand why people like you resort to telling people to leave or to stop watching or to shut up whenever those people dare say something you don’t agree with. I guess the notion of a discussion is entirely foreign to you. I guess it’s either I agree with you or I should keep my mouth shut forever.

            Too bad for you, that ain’t going to happen.

          • SpaceCadet

            I’m glad we both agree that you shouldn’t watch the show because you wouldn’t be able to handle it. Apparently all of the women and ethnics on it would make your head explode.

          • Ace Stephens

            I am sad to see people miss your point while, of course, believing they have the moral high ground (yet I feel that when we do not attempt to show earnest understanding of others – for instance, instead dismissing their argument or misconstruing it because it doesn’t suit our personal view/agenda – we inherently abandon the moral high ground). I disagree with your characterization or contextualization of this casting and the casting process but I believe that I understand what you mean. I gather you are roughly saying that you do not think people should be cast on the basis of elements outside of their performance ability as a “type” of character (for instance, if race is not integral to it, race, gender, etc.) and feel this announcement or a recent trend among these announcements tends to skew toward certain seeming “limitations” even while many cheering it on advocate removing those.

            I can understand your frustration with the seeming hypocrisy or double standard or simply failing to live up to their own ideals all while feeling they perfectly embody them. I see things from many in the world like that. Although, again, I do not contextualize this casting process (in my view allowing for numerous people of color or similar) in the manner you seem to.

          • Fctiger

            No the POINT is we get tired of the same double standard BS that always gets passed around with crap like this. If the character was revealed as a white man, ie, Scott Bakula NO ONE would be questioning that decision. No one would be saying its just a ploy to hire more white people or they ONLY want to hire white people.

            Why is it that this comes around ONLY when a minority is hired???? Thats the double standard people get tired of hearing. I laid it out in one post but when Star Trek created the first three Captains from Kirk to Sisko no one ever said they were discriminating against women. But then when they decided on Voyager the role would specifically go to a woman the argument became the usual “how come they just don’t give it to the best person for the job”? The same crap thats now being said here. They did, for a WOMAN the character was specified for (OK there was someone else before her but everyone moved on quickly lol) as they did for all the men Captains at the time. This is the same issue.

            The CHARACTER is a BLACK WOMAN. Thats WHO she is. Why is it not ok to say they just want the character to be black and female? When they were casting for Picard he was suppose to be a French man and yes more than likely white. That’s who the character was. Did anyone moan about that? Did anyone say “Well it fails the ideals of Star Trek because it should just be on the merit of the actor and not these ‘outside’ elements of his nationality or being a man.” No this crap ONLY comes up when its a person of color. Its this same myopic, narrow bias people do over and over again. It has nothing to do with taking a moral stand and everything to do with applying these standards to people of color you NEVER hear for white actors or males. Ever.

            But hey, If you can sit here and give me ONE example where people bitched over a WHITE character in Star Trek when they were given the role then I will get your point. Just one actor people thought only got it for being white and nothing more?

            Just one.

          • Ace Stephens

            If the character was revealed as a white man, ie, Scott Bakula NO ONE would be questioning that decision.

            This is false. It would likely be more scattered and instances would not be met with such hyperbole in general (although in a few instances, certainly) given the current social climate but it would be questioned by quite a few.

            No one would be saying its just a ploy to hire more white people or they ONLY want to hire white people.

            Generally not…and that’s because “white people” are considered the relative “standard” by default due to being the majority within the potential talent pool and relevant/target viewing audience (US subscribers in this specific case – although of course Discovery will have a vast, vast audience beyond that). However, given many social concerns, people such as yourself might point toward things such as the casting of mostly white people and/or Bakula in such an instance as an example of how they continue to not be as inclusive as they could be. In fact, you’re basically doing so here by noting the breadth of such instances. So that you can act like, “But nobody questions it…” when you’re here using it as a rhetorical example worthy of being questioned if existing in such an instance as this sort of shows how much you might have skewed or narrowed matters in terms of your personal perception here.

            You wouldn’t have a rhetorical argument if nobody questioned it. Because you’re questioning it right now.

            But then when they decided on Voyager the role would specifically go to a woman the argument became the usual “how come they just don’t give it to the best person for the job”?

            Yes, some presented this argument. Some from a place of disliking the “change” and associating with elements of masculinity within the series or the culture at large (what some might reasonably construe, in some parts, as sexism). And others might have done so because they felt that setting out to “define” the captain by gender was actually more regressive than it was progressive. And, therefore, in a sense, may have actually been thinking more in the spirit of Trek than even yourself or others who may have simply cheered on the notion. Yet people wish to believe it’s as simple as, “They’re just all bigoted or the like…” Because that’s easier than looking in a mirror and comparing/contrasting reasonably and then still going, “Wait, I like defining people by gender…” or “I like the idea that we do so now for our current culture which is still so hung up on these things even if Trek itself seems to exist in a realm predominantly beyond that…” or similar. But, through these means, we can then come to understand opposing views more thoroughly by better understanding ourselves.

            Of course, I would call for those who just thought, “Why not the best person?” simply because it was a woman to do some self-reflection but I don’t think there’s much probability they would get anything out of it. So I tend not to bother even presenting that as a possibility in their cases (those who might seem more bigoted or narrow-minded regarding social views outright).

            The CHARACTER is a BLACK WOMAN. Thats WHO she is.

            How so? How is this defined? On the basis of stereotypes, shortcuts of thinking/perception, etc.? How do you define what being a “black woman” is? Particularly in a society (such as in Trek) wherein race/gender/etc. are, functionally in most regards, irrelevant? See, if you can answer these things simply and with confidence…I’m not sure I trust in your interpretation of Trek’s humanist view (or at least what I interpret as that from Trek). And if those things aren’t “defining” (as in fairly ardently formed/intrinsic elements of the persona), then telling me she’s a “BLACK WOMAN” as though it is intrinsically meaningful feels extremely reductive and veering toward empowering various bigoted perspectives itself. You know, “Black women are like this…” (and not in some comedic way meant to express humor through contrasting generalities with reality/individuality)…and then when someone else turns around and says the same or excludes black women and the experiences of some on the basis of not suiting it, it’s all, “I didn’t empower that!” Well, you basically did when you argued that it was something you could define so thoroughly/specifically.

            No this crap ONLY comes up when its a person of color. Its this same myopic, narrow bias people do over and over again.

            Again, look in a mirror. You are not free from this sort of thing. I am not free from this sort of thing. We must constantly self-examine before we allow ourselves to blame others or else we become someone to blame by default through losing sight of our own fallibility, through possibly falling victim to ego, bias, narrowed perception, etc. The same things you’re standing against, correct?

            Many are simply saying “Practice what you preach” because they perceive that some may not have done so here. That might come from a biased/bigoted place from some. It might come from a place that isn’t from others. Some might be a mix. It’s all dependent upon many variables and we can’t always determine them. But many feel they can. And, of course, as I partially suggest above, those quickest to believe they may do so are likely the least qualified to do so. That is, they are likely those most in need of self-reflection.

            It has nothing to do with taking a moral stand and everything to do with applying these standards to people of color you NEVER hear for white actors or males.

            “Nothing” and “everything” are pretty broad notions that don’t leave much room for understanding. Only a Sith deals in absolu…wait – wrong franchise.

            But, again, you do hear these arguments regarding white actors or males but, due to the talent pool and years of history both culturally and within this franchise, it is not considered particularly notable except as that broad generality which is that most have been cast that way. These sorts of reactions occur in broad manners but we see specifics examples particularly when a work might have had a setting or characters from a certain realm and they’re cut or adjusted (even if just from “common perception”) to be white in an adaptation. Things like that.

            Or, in this case, Fuller suggested he thought a female person of color would most likely be cast. Imagine then if he cast a random white guy.

            …Could you seriously not see certain sections of the internet (perhaps not this comment section but still – I think we would see some of it) “filling up” with people saying, “Oh, we see how it is…”-type things and basically writing off his seeming efforts otherwise (to be more inclusive) because he “changed it” or similar?

            Certainly, this specific example is a false equivalency in some regards but so was your hypothetical to begin with.

            If you can sit here and give me ONE example where people bitched over a WHITE character in Star Trek when they were given the role then I will get your point. Just one actor people thought only got it for being white and nothing more?

            This is a strawman. I have not seen many questioning the “race-based” casting (that is, how some have construed it – and you seem to agree in thinking the character is inherently a black woman) on the basis of believing the actress does not have ability at all or similar. Again, “nothing,” you said. “Nothing more.” But I have heard a great, great many people, particularly on sites associated with social issues, point out weak actors in things and question why the prevalence of white actors as characters exists/persists when not expressly necessary.

            This style of discussion is “everywhere” now. /Sith

          • Fctiger

            {“This is false. It would likely be more scattered and instances would not be met with such hyperbole in general (although in a few instances, certainly) given the current social climate but it would be questioned by quite a few.”}

            LOL I specifically said Scott Bakula because he was the last new Captain hired for Star Trek and yet I dont remember ANYONE questioning if he should be given the job or if other minorities were over looked because they wanted a white male Captain again after Sisko and Janeway. That was my point man NO ONE questioned it. No one. At worst people didn’t like the actor but they never accused him of getting the job over his race or being a man like some people did here for this role. Right?

            }Generally not…and that’s because “white people” are considered the relative “standard” by default due to being the majority within the potential talent pool and relevant viewing audience.”

            Yeah thank you for saying what we all been talking about. You just admitted it and yet you’re fine white people are automatically the ‘default’. EXACTLY the issue.

            “However, given many social concerns, people such as yourself might point toward things such as the casting of mostly white people and/or Bakula in such an instance as an example of how they continue to not be as inclusive as they could be. In fact, you’re basically doing so here by noting the breadth of such instances. So that you can act like, “But nobody questions it…” when you’re here using it as a rhetorical example worthy of being questioned if existing in such an instance as this sort of shows how much you might have skewed or narrowed matters in terms of your personal perception here.”

            Dude I DIN”T have a problem with Scott Bakula. In fact on this same board I wrote here days ago was how excited I was he got the part because they FINALLY picked an actor for Captain I actually knew and liked lol. I DIDN’T question it thats my point chief. I DIDN’T question any of them. I didn’t care who these parts were ever given to, mostly because 99% of the time I didn’t know the actor previous work. So man knock off that BS with my ‘perception’ I have NEVER had a single issue with who they cast on these shows in terms of new characters. Because they are NEW characters so I trust the people making the show know what they are doing and 9 out of 10 they all been fine.

            But that said of course I knew the majority would be white because, guess what, the majority on these shows ARE white. I don’t have a problem with that. Why would I? Its the people MOANING about having two less white people in a cast thats still majority white that is just beyond, BEYOND eye rolling.

            “How so? How is this defined? On the basis of stereotypes, shortcuts of thinking/perception, etc.? How do you define what being a “black woman” is?”

            Oh my god. They wanted a black woman for the role. Did you ask all these probing questions when George Lucas came up with Han Solo and Luke Skywalker? Give it a rest.

            “Particularly in a society (such as in Trek) wherein race/gender/etc. are, functionally in most regards, irrelevant? See, if you can answer these things simply and with confidence…I’m not sure I trust in your interpretation of Trek’s humanist view (or at least what I interpret as that from Trek). And if those things aren’t “defining” (as in fairly ardently formed/intrinsic elements of the persona), then telling me she’s a “BLACK WOMAN” as though it is intrinsically meaningful feels extremely reductive and veering toward empowering various bigoted perspectives itself. You know, “Black women are like this…” (and not in some comedic way meant to express humor through contrasting generalities with reality/individuality)…and then when someone else turns around and says the same or excludes black women and the experiences of some on the basis of not suiting it, it’s all, “I didn’t empower that!” Well, you basically did when you argued that it was something you could define so thoroughly/specifically.”

            Dude you are going off into a nutty tangent. When JK Rowling made Harry Potter a white British 10 year old boy for her books did she get challenged with ANYTHING close to this nonesense? She wanted him to be British and white and also knew boys were more into fantasy so he was a boy. No one got her case for that. No one got on Roddenberry’s case in 1965 when he hired one white actor to be the Captain and then when that didn’t work out he hired ANOTHER white actor. Do you seriously think he didn’t make those characters WHITE MEN from the beginning? Of course he did, it was 1966 he wouldnt get the show on the air if he didn’t. Now we live in a time you can make a character black and a woman as the main star and people don’t blink.

            The fact your tangents just prove my point. When people hire white actors no one goes into this ridiculous rant. When a character is striaight no one blinks. Its only when characters are women, people of color or gay that suddenly people are throwing out these ridiculous double standards and issues they have with them. Its becoming less and less so but sadly as shown its still there.

            “Again, look in a mirror. You are not free from this sort of thing. I am not free from this sort of thing. We must constantly self-examine before we allow ourselves to blame others or else we become someone to blame by default through losing sight of our own fallibility, through possibly falling victim to ego, bias, narrowed perception, etc. The same things you’re standing against, correct?

            Many are simply saying “Practice what you preach” because they perceive that some may not have done so here. That might come from a biased/bigoted place from some. It might come from a place that isn’t from others. Some might be a mix. It’s all dependent upon many variables and we can’t always determine them. But many feel they can. And, of course, as I partially suggest above, those quickest to believe they may do so are likely the least qualified to do so. That is, they are likely those most in need of self-reflection.”

            Man stop pretending like you know me.

            Before we knew anything about the show when it was just announced do you know who I actually wanted as Captain on the show? I wanted Nathan Fillion. Do you know who that is? He played the main character on the show Castle and was the Captain on Firefly, which is the reason I wanted him. I was a HUGE fan of that show and because of his character. Firefly was basically anti-Star Trek and a great show. But I loved him as the Captain and I had this dream he could play something similar here and instead of being one of the more perfect Captains we seen time and time again I thought it would be cool we have a deeply flawed one. Someone rugged and while he believed in Starfleet he didn’t always believe that its uptight rules matched the reality of the galaxy. I pictured him doing something disgraceful but got the Captain chair again and had to prove himself.

            And because of the character from Fifefly. Now obviously I didn’t think he could do it and many would associate him from that show too much that was just one of my dream cast pick if I was able to run the show, thats all. I didn’t give a damn of his color or being a man I simply like the dude. And as I SAID I have never once questioned any casting decision, not once, in the 35 years I been watching this show. And yeah, guess what, I’m not questioning it now. I’m not the one with the problem chief.

            “Look in a mirror”. Shut up man.

            “This is a strawman. I have not seen many questioning the “race-based” casting (that is, how some have construed it – and you seem to agree in thinking the character is inherently a black woman) on the basis of believing the actress does not have ability at all or similar. Again, “nothing,” you said. “Nothing more.” But I have heard a great, great many people, particularly on sites associated with social issues, point out weak actors in things and question why the prevalence of white actors as characters exists/persists when not expressly necessary.”

            So in other words you can’t give me a single example where someone got upset because they were cast as white. You could’ve just said that instead all this hogwash.

            And YET I can give you several when its a person of color. Wonder why?

            Thanks for proving my point.

          • Ace Stephens

            That was my point man NO ONE questioned it. No one.

            They did. I heard people, even back then, asking why Trek was “going backwards” – and they weren’t specifically referring to just the prequel elements.

            At worst people didn’t like the actor but they never accused him of
            getting the job over his race or being a man like some people did here
            for this role. Right?

            I heard people arguing that, due to the perception that the brand was lessened, that he might be “the best they could get.” I heard things like that. As well as the…yes, the thing I said about it being “yet another white man.”

            …white people are automatically the ‘default’. EXACTLY the issue.

            You’re too busy judging to be understanding here. It’s not “the issue.” It’s “the reality.” The majority of the population is white and the leads in action films tend to be men on the basis that polling even shows that the women (who more often choose what films to go to or similar, statistically) prefer that. So…you have to consider the reality of the industry’s functioning. It’s a business first of all so it has to suit what people want to a notable degree. The majority of the potential audience is white. The targeted audience is generally male. Etc. etc. So if you have things that skew “male” and “white,” things tend to go that way.

            Similarly, after things like Harry Potter took off, Hollywood went, “We can make movies out of young adult books?! Oh yeah! We knew that!” and went into overdrive. After Hung Games, people in charge of things went, “Audiences accept a female action hero?! WHAAAAAT?!” Because they’re idiots who somehow didn’t realize this before. But wanting more representation doesn’t change that each individual work/episode/etc. likely, on average, wishes to attempt to appeal to the most consumers. So…when you’ve got a white male focus because that’s what demographics suggest sell, that’s what tends to attract – in terms of specifics – far less needless/negative controversy, etc. and that’s what most of the talent pool winds up being for you to choose from…

            That’s just the reality at that point. It has nothing to do with an “issue.” What I presented was the reality. Now, if you’re suggesting that the lack of prominent/viable/etc. roles for minority actors is an issue, sure.

            …But that’s not the same thing. It’s a correlated element but not what I described. I described the reality. You can’t just magically “will” the US population to be less white or more white or…whatever in those realms and expect that to pay off or mean anything and that’s more in the realm of the reality of the circumstances I was citing.

            Dude I DIDN”T have a problem with Scott Bakula.

            I never said you did. You seem to be making a habit of mistaking what someone is saying for a tangential interpretation of it.

            So man knock off that BS with my ‘perception’…

            You clearly didn’t understand what I was referring to so that would suggest that, to clearly communicate my points, I will have to continue addressing your “perception.”

            But that said of course I knew the majority would be white because, guess what, the majority on these shows ARE white.

            Right. Because the available talent pool and the dominant viewing audience (for CBS All Access) is. It’s just the reality. I mean, some went off on conspiratorial tangents when Yeoh was cast because China is having a lot more pull regarding media consumers. While that’s the reality – that China’s importance as far as business goes has grown in recent years…drawing the correlation on the basis of one or two characters cast is rather absurd.

            Did you ask all these probing questions when George Lucas came up with Han Solo and Luke Skywalker?

            The question of “Where are the black people?” was asked after A New Hope and Lando appeared in the very next film. I may not have asked it (I couldn’t have) but it was asked.

            Dude you are going off into a nutty tangent.

            When you suggest that people can be defined so fully by race/gender/etc., you strengthen the arguments of those who are bigoted who also argue such things. That’s all I was getting into there as far as a seeming “tangent” goes.

            When JK Rowling made Harry Potter a white British 10 year old boy for
            her books did she get challenged with ANYTHING close to this nonsense?

            That’s an original IP. As I alluded to, adaptations will have people flip out if things are notably altered or even simply perceived to be. Recall the casting for The Cursed Child and how people flipped out about Hermione being black? Some presented what they felt was evidence she wasn’t from the books but Rowling said she could be. And various people have questioned the diversity in the books as well regardless. Particularly things like, “Oh, Dumbledore is gay but you tell us outside of the books? …Why is that?”

            So yeah. I would argue it was close to this. But maybe you’re not a Potterhead. Or maybe you are but just didn’t see this stuff. I don’t know.

            Do you seriously think he didn’t make those characters WHITE MEN from the beginning?

            While it suited the marketplace, I have been given the impression that this was more of a “wish fulfillment” thing for himself than it was necessarily any intuitive, broader view. But certainly he knew it suited the marketplace and that some didn’t seem “ready” for some of what he wanted to present.

            Of course, these days, you have people presenting sentiment like, “How could a white person know enough about what it’s like for a black person? And so how dare they write something featuring a black character!” and then turning around and saying, “Why are there no black characters?!” about some things. But, of course, that’s not the majority.

            Now we live in a time you can make a character black and a woman as the main star and people don’t blink.

            Oh, great. So we’re not here having this conversation?

            The fact your tangents just prove my point. When people hire white actors no one goes into this ridiculous rant.

            What ridiculous rant? If you’re referring to the length of my post, that’s not even a third as long as my longest reply. If you mean the tangent, that is related even though it is not expressly the subject being discussed so I don’t see the issue there and construing that as a “rant” seems misguided to me. I rarely ever reply on the basis of emotional investment. I reply on the basis of reasoning and understanding.

            Also, again, yes people go into ridiculous rants when white people are cast (when the expectation is that it won’t be). Saying “no one” doesn’t help your argument. Absolutes do not help.

            Its only when characters are women, people of color or gay that suddenly
            people are throwing out these ridiculous double standards 1000 word
            essays they have with them.

            I assume you’re referring to me as I don’t see many other lengthy posts here. I am not presenting double standards in this instance with my view, however, so the applicability of your comment is…relatively absent here.

            Man stop pretending like you know me.

            How was I doing so? By suggesting that your worldview is informed by the world around you? ….It’s odd to attempt to deny that if this is what you’re doing.

            Before we knew anything about the show when it was just announced do you
            know who I actually wanted as Captain on the show? I wanted Nathan
            Fillion.

            Talk about tangents. What does this have to do with anything? I’m getting the impression you think I am suggesting, “Oh, you’re all pushing this person of color stuff and gays and…”-type thing and so you find you’re defending against that somehow. But I never suggested anything like that. So…what are you talking about?

            And yes, I’m well aware of who he is. I own copies of many things he has appeared in.

            I pictured him doing something disgraceful but got the Captain chair again and had to prove himself.

            Your idea sounds intriguing. (I still don’t see the relevance but I enjoy “listening” to what people have to say, particularly in the “creative” realm.)

            And as I SAID I have never once questioned any casting decision, not
            once, in the 35 years I been watching this show. And yeah, guess what,
            I’m not questioning it now. I’m not the one with the problem chief.

            See, similarly to your rhetorical question with Bakula, you don’t seem to realize that this sentiment has a degree of contradicting itself if the implication is as it appears. It appears to suggest that I have the problem (with “chief” being a dismissive nickname attached). Now, maybe that wasn’t your intention, maybe those associations have nothing to do with anything directly relevant here. But imagine someone’s doing nothing particularly questionable while engaging someone and the other person says, “I’m not the one with the problem, chief.” …It suggests they are. Particularly if they’ve misread the situation to the extent that they truly believe the other party has a problem.

            “Look in a mirror”. Shut up man.

            Few people resent the suggestion of self-reflection like those who may need it the most. You seem to think I’m being condescending, which may reasonably appear the case, but I don’t believe it is even remotely condescending to suggest that people, on social issues, self-reflect. You, me, others.

            So in other words you can’t give me a single example where someone got
            upset because they were cast as white. You could’ve just said that
            instead all this hogwash.

            Your question was irrelevant as your framing is inapplicable. I addressed the concerns you raised and you’re calling it “hogwash” seemingly out of personal concerns rather than what I’ve genuinely argued. I could speculate as to what those are on an individual basis but I don’t know enough about you to go into depth on much other than possibilities and, despite what you’ve presented regarding your demeanor, there are still so many as to make doing so rather fruitless at this point. Plus, I am not getting the impression you would be receptive to my characterization of you if some portion of it isn’t expressly positive and so you would similarly write that off.

            Because self-reflection is difficult for the vast, vast majority of people. But you seem to think I’m singling you out or belittling you to suggest it. I’m saying it’s a good idea for everyone on these (often divisive) subjects and I just happen to be addressing you here.

            But if you say, “Oh, give me this thing that means very little in direct relation to the actual concern presented by those I am writing off…” and I say, “That doesn’t mean much of anything in direct relation…

            That’s not me being unable to provide you with something in the realm of that (indeed, I pointed toward a broader generality). That’s it being functionally irrelevant.

            Thanks for proving my point.

            I haven’t done so. You have misconstrued a great many things. I pointed this out to begin with but, instead of self-reflecting, you chose to double down. That is your responsibility. Not that I am expecting you to acknowledge or “deal with” that at this rate.

          • Fctiger

            Ok man, I can’t read all of that lol. Ok we’re cool.

          • SpaceCadet

            Wow, you were really being psychoanalyzed there! Sounds like fun! Lol

          • M33

            LOL!
            Ace, it is always a pleasure having you join in the conversations.
            I always appreciate your depth of thought and critical thinking.
            Fascinating stuff that always adds to the conversation.
            When you take subjects to task, you sure do!

          • Ace Stephens

            I can’t shut up and my views might have layers or nuance but still be ridiculously convoluted/simplistic/stupid in doing so! I’m awesome!

          • M33

            Exhibit A:
            Scott Bakula
            j/k

          • Fctiger

            LOL yeah but not on the basis of him being white. Thats what I mean. Or claimed he took it from a minority.

    • ReveurIngenu

      Look out, a wild White Knight just appeared! Anyone complaining MUST be white and male. Because why else would one EVER want to stand up against political correctness otherwise? Such a reductive and simple view on things is just sad. The world can’t do anything but pity you for your narrow-minded view.

    • Newdivide1701

      Folks, I think what he’s saying is that his sick and tired of the negative attitudes of having a black woman taking the lead of a Star Trek series, despite the fact that we had Sisko and Janeway taking the leads, a black man and a woman.

      Basically he’s targeting racism and sexism, the toxic wastes as to why some white males are griping over a black woman taking the reins. Uhura – either one – never did that despite Zoe Saldana’s Uhura showing us she can be a bad ass when she needs to and not some damsel in distress.

    • Locutus

      Here! Here! I am shocked when I read Star Trek fans complaining about diverse casting. How some fans can so utterly fail to grasp one of the core ethos of Star Trek is just baffling. Roddenberry went out of his way to create African and Asian characters to represent that the Enterprise is “Space Ship Earth”, not “Space Ship White American Privilege.”

    • M33

      The thing is I understand both sides.
      Both are wanting the same thing: for everyone to have an equal opportunity.
      Left leaners see the solution as mandating diversity.
      Right leaners see the solution as selectment based solely on merit.
      I try to look at this if the shoe was on the other foot.
      If Fuller said, “We are hiring mostly white people”, would that bother me?
      If Fuller said, “We are hiring mostly minorities”, would that bother me?
      To me, the answer is Yes on both counts, because prejudice is defined by favoring or disfavoring something or someone on a trait regardless of whatever else they have to offer.
      However, the entertainment industry is allowed this privledge because of “artistic vision”.
      I find that to be a thin line of reasoning, but somehow our societies allow it, despite the nature of discrimination laws that purport otherwise.
      It is a tenuous discussion, and one that I think neither side is really willing to resolve with each other because each thinks the other is completely wrong and the polarization becomes worse.
      I think both are equally right and wrong.
      I think much of the discussion on this subject tends to miss the point.
      …Perhaps myself included.

      • SpaceCadet

        I think the overriding thing is that for a show like Star Trek, which by its very nature is supposed to represent diversity and the coming together of people (and aliens) of all backgrounds, you don’t really see that reflected nowadays if a cast is to be mostly male and white. TOS was ahead of its time for having a woman of color and a man of color on the bridge. If the original pilot had sold, there would have been a woman second-in-command which would have been so wonderfully revolutionary. Then we had the first interracial kiss on dramatic TV. TNG moved us forward with 3 women senior officers, including the chief medical officer and head of security. Sure the captain was a white male but even he broke through the mold of being an American guy with a full head of hair! DS9 had a man of color in the lead and a female second officer. VGR had a woman in charge and a woman chief engineer. ENT wasn’t especially revolutionary but at least the second in command was a woman again. And now we’re at Discovery which looks to be the most diverse cast yet. It’s been a gradual “progressive” progression from Point A to Point B to Point C and so on. So I’m not sure why certain people are all up in arms about “PC” this and “liberal” that. The times are a changin’. Me thinks for the better.

        • M33

          Although it is funny how “speciesist” McCoy was, wasn’t it?
          Vulcan this.
          Vulcan that.
          Are you out of your Vulcan mind?
          LOL

          • SpaceCadet

            Well, something the original series had going for it was there was at least some conflict like that among the characters. In TNG everyone was each other’s best friend which is very comforting for the TV audience but was a challenge for the writers to deal with. Besides, the back and forth between Spock and McCoy was fun and a hallmark of that show. Even though they got in digs at each other, they still respected each other professionally and cared about each other as friends. Hopefully, this deep kind of characterization will carry over to DSC.

          • Ace Stephens

            I always viewed that as the sort of bonding that many do. It is typically construed as a “male” thing (unfairly, I find – as it’s not a great deal more prevalent among men who are close than similarly-minded women who are) but I know guys who pick a thing they don’t actually care about that sets another guy “apart” and give them a nickname based on that and bring it up as though it’s a defect and all this. I know McCoy blurts it out at times that might seem…”phobic” or similar but I think it is truly in that realm for him.

            It’s fun, funny, bonding, etc. to antagonize him for it. I’ve seen people do similar regarding race or such things. Have you seen Hell or High Water? There’s a character who behaves in that manner in that and I think most, if they are being reasonable about the evident intent/relationship, find it endearing even if – on the “social advocacy” level – it sets off “problematic” red flags.

      • Fctiger

        But the funny thing about that end of the day they ARE hiring mostly whites anyway. They have on every show. I pointed this out before. ALL Fuller is saying is common sense Star Trek REPRESENTS diversity, it ALWAYS have. Have we all forgotten Fuller is a white guy? Hell the ENTIRE WRITING STAFF IS WHITE!! (And no one is moaning about that!) I’m more than sure he and the others wants white actors lol. All he is saying is everyone else should be included with that.

        I have always described Star Trek as the United Nations in space. The other side is just being ridiculous as usual. No one here is saying there should be no white actors ALL people are saying is its a show that is suppose to represent EVERYONE, always have, always will. What the hell is wrong with that? I’m sitting here shaking my head because they are literally saying it should be more white people, period. Again that’s decades of bias and racism talking.

        I’m black, I’m not ADVOCATING for all black actors or mostly black actors, none of that. I want to see a show that represents EVERYONE: white, black, gay, straight, Latino, Asian, men, women, all various nationalities etc. Its unrealistic that every one would be of course but people are saying it should be 90% white and 10% everyone else? No one has said that directly but yes some idiots here have made that clear.

        And whats funny about that ‘diversity’ is still pretty small because you will get 1 Asian, 1-2 black people, MAYBE a Latino or Middle Easterner, about 2-3 women and the rest will be all white and male anyway so what is the issue? The majority will be white regardless thats what is so bizarre about these arguments. Even when the majority of the cast is already white they are upset its not even whiter?? On Star Trek out of all places.

        What is the real issue is we are SO conditioned for white actors to have basically all the parts it is acceptable. But thats the problem it SHOULDNT be acceptable today. All these idiots who keep saying the part should be given to the one who does the best, yeah, no duh but are people going to say that was true of the industry for the first 60 years of its existence?

        All people are saying is they want a balance. I watch The Walking Dead the actress is known for and thats exactly what that show does. People on that show are white, black, Asian, Latino, etc. Its a multicultural cast. Why, because it represents real life. America IS a diverse country, a diverse audience watch the show, so why is it an outcry to show that? And even then the vast majority of characters on that cast is still white regardless. Its much ado about nothing.

        • M33

          Fun to discuss, isn’t it?
          For me, I really don’t care what ethnicity or skin tone the actor is. In Star Trek, we are beyond the pettiness of it. It just shouldn’t matter.
          We are all human.
          I think what got these other folks all riled up isn’t that there are not more whites, I think it was Fuller stressing that he would be sure to hire people or create characters based on their color or sexual orientation, which is really discriminating against another group of people. It is that it was his INTENTION to hire or create characters discriminatorally.
          If he had said absolutely nothing to that effect and just hired whomever he wanted, I don’t think there would have been this branch of fan reaction.
          Star Trek fans, all of them, inherently embrace diversity. It is the core of the show. They could not watch otherwise.
          I think they may want these Hollywood types to embrace the Star Trek philosophy of no prejudice when it comes to hiring practices.
          Although, very very funny point about the writers being mostly all white. (But don’t forget the Jewish ones, too!)
          It is funny though that folks who stress for diversity in what is on TV aren’t necessarily demanding that all ethnicities be equally represented in every industry out there.
          Some do, but…
          This topic could go on forever…

          • Fctiger

            Yeah I hear everything you said. It all makes sense. But thats not what Fuller is doing. He’s not discriminating against anyone since all he is doing what EVERY writer and producer does and that is fill the roles of predetermined characters. Like writing a novel, you have certain characters in mind in terms of their nationality, race, height, age, gender etc. There are specifics of what a character looks like and background. So there will always be SOME weeding out the character.

            I get what you mean like blind casting for a character like you are making a cop show but in this case they are looking for specific traits and thats fine just like EVERY writer makes specific traits for characters.

            Harry Potter for example is a 10 year old white British boy. Thats who the character is and so you’re not going to seek out blacks or girls or Americans (unless they can sound British enough I guess). These writers all have who these characters are in their head. Sure SOME may be blind casting ie, any race, age, gender, etc but most will simply adhere to who the character is and fill the roles for it.

            Thats why this ‘argument’ is odd to me. I mean when TOS came around do people honestly think they had women, Asians, Arabics, etc read for the part of James Kirk? The character was an American guy in his 30s and MORE THAN LIKELY white because back then America=White even if Shatner was Canadian lol. But he fit the all American type back then blond and blue eye, handsome, athletic build etc. So you are going to just look for those actor traits. But thats the thing about TOS, Roddenberry wanted an Asian character, a black character, etc. He wasn’t ‘discriminating’ those were simply the characters he imagined and filled in as such.

            When JK rowling made the Harry Pottter characters most of them had very specific traits and the films represented that. THe ones who didnt I imagine they got whoever was the best regardless of race but even then gender is still identified in most of these characters and guess what there are always less roles for women on the simple basis nearly every show and movie there are less women roles. Are people suggesting characters dont have a gender identity for casting? Obviously all the time. Are they trying to discriminate against women? I would say no the characters are just men.

            Again which is WHY this is so funny to me. The first three Trek shows were all were male Captains. NO women ever adutioned for those roles. And yet when it came time for someone to say “Hmmm, maybe a woman Captain would be cool” SUDDENLY its ‘discriminating against the men lol. This is the odd double standards they use. So no one complained when it was gender identified as men. Now when someone specifically decides “Yeah, lets have a woman” its all the usual crap thrown at this as if its illegal to decide to have a woman lead.

            And with Trek it was always written with a DIVERSE group of characters in mind. So this argument is ridiculous. NOT to you, I get your point 100% and you understand it as I do, I mean that its somehow ‘wrong’ to create a diverse series of characters and fill them as so, especially since Hollywood has been making white characters for decades now.

            The way people think on these things are so biased, myopic and sadly yes racist. NOT all of them, but yes some. And its sad.

          • Ace Stephens

            And we already have two white actors who more than likely are playing specifically white characters unless one is an alien, I dont know.

            Jones is playing an alien. Which, if you know his notable roles, is typecasting.

            …just like EVERY writer makes specific traits for characters.

            Nope. The vast, vast majority? Sure, for most characters. Sometimes not though. Or they already know who will play whoever.

            EXAMPLE, when TOS came around do people honestly think they had women, Asians, Arabics, Latinos, college age people etc read for the part of James T. Kirk?

            Social views have progressed since the 1960s. Perhaps not as much as they should have (I, personally, would argue nowhere near as much…) but the argument that many now attempt to have a more inclusive view in general by not including race, gender, etc. as though they’re utterly determining factors of “character”…is very valid. I think so, at least. I think it holds up to some stuff and I tend to agree a notable amount although not across the board.

            I mean, one of the go-to examples for this type of thing is regarding Alien where Ripley was meant to be a guy. While Ridley has basically made generalized remarks surrounding perceptions of gender/strength/etc. as his justification, imagine if he hadn’t been open to that. We’d probably be less “culturally rich” regarding scifi.

            And yet when it came time for someone to say “Hmmm, maybe a woman Captain would be cool” SUDDENLY its ‘discriminating against the men lol. This is the odd double standards they use.

            Some, yes. Others want us to truly “move beyond this” (racism, discrimination, etc. in some form or fashion) and feel that there are currently double standards in place by those perhaps somewhat like yourself which might prevent that. I don’t expressly agree there are double standards in this specific case of casting but I fully understand that concern within the broader framework of, “If that’s how you want things to be, treat things that way or else you’re just ensuring that’s never how things will be.”

            Again, whats funny about it though is saying ‘diverse’ suddenly means no white people?

            Ugh. One of the worst examples of this sort of “us/them” false dichotomy stuff I sometimes see are those who start talking about “white genocide.” The vast majority of the time, those people are clearly racist (sometimes openly). Although some are just baffled by the odd double standards being placed on things in order to counteract previous poor practices/experiences/etc. perceived to have been enacted/enforced by white people (as a generality). But that’s a significantly small amount among those I have seen, although I have admittedly not come across a great many who claim such things. There seems to be little hope for most who do though. From the few I have interacted with or stumbled across.

            Again, odd thinking because they would be included in that. That’s what diversity means, EVERYONE is included…

            It is odd. However, I have also seen photographs of all one gender, race, etc. (or with only the most minor/small of differences/variations/etc. as “people” in the broader, more representative sense of that word) being described as “diverse” specifically because they weren’t white and male. That’s rather odd thinking as well. I think some people get confused and wind up thinking everybody who presents things like that represents an entire swath of people it doesn’t (which sort of ties into why some might think almost anyone here saying, “Wait a second…” is the same as the racist sorts even if they’re not…). And so they wind up thinking, “Oh, white genocide!” stuff and it’s just…so, so narrow-minded. But once they get too far into that realm, it’s usually difficult to get through to them in my view.

            I wish they could self-reflect because I think the root of their view which carries them in that direction is sometimes…close to a shared goal with those who they wind up outright opposing. But people drift further and further away, stop communicating and write others off constantly. And so, if they won’t look outward or inward except to…show off or be awful (or other things like that – “Haha! I stand defiant!”…eeehhhh), I don’t see much hope there.

            The way people think on these things are so biased, myopic and sadly yes racist. NOT all of them, but yes some. And its sad.

            Agreed. And I think we have a responsibility to attempt to avoid this ourselves and avoid opposing it in similar realms or through similar means of thinking (“fire with fire” is one of the most prevalent attitudes/tactics I see that constantly undermines its own goals). Sadly, we may need to take the high ground because the low ground just empowers all the further problems in many cases. Of course, the most vocal/awful will stand out more and likely cause more issues, as is typically the case…

            Argh.

          • Fctiger

            {{{Jones is playing an alien. Which, if you know his notable roles, is typecasting.}}}

            OK cool. But no never heard of him until now.

            {{{Nope. The vast, vast majority? Sure, for most characters. Sometimes not though. Or they already know who will play whoever.}}}

            I’m talking about writing in general for ALL mediums: Novel, plays, comic books, etc. Most of these people wouldn’t be good at their job if they didn’t give SOME background or specific traits. Thats what writing IS. Visual medium is a bit different obviously but yes as you just said even then MAJORITY of the time they already have the idea of the character in mind before casting it….that just makes their job easier.

            {{{Social views have progressed since the 1960s. Perhaps not as much as they should have (I, personally, would argue nowhere near as much…) but the argument that many now attempt to have a more inclusive view in general by not including race, gender, etc. as though they’re utterly determining factors of “character”…is very valid. I think so, at least. I think it holds up to some stuff and I tend to agree a notable amount although not across the board.}}}

            And most of the time they ARE, whats offensive is the second they are NOT white people claim its for ‘PC’ reasons as some morons here has. Thats the problem, you can’t even higher a person of color or a woman without people thinking its an ‘agenda’. Maybe it could just be, yeah social views have progressed since 1960s and people just want to put anyone they would like to see for the role. Seriously it can be as simple as that.

            {{{I mean, one of the go-to examples for this type of thing is regarding Alien where Ripley was meant to be a guy. While Ridley has basically made generalized remarks surrounding perceptions of gender/strength/etc. as his justification, imagine if he hadn’t been open to that. We’d probably be less “culturally rich” regarding scifi.}}}

            Yeah thats a positive. THANK GOD there was no internet back then either. ;D

            {{{Some, yes. Others want us to truly “move beyond this” (racism, discrimination, etc. in some form or fashion) and feel that there are currently double standards in place by those perhaps somewhat like yourself which might prevent that.}}}

            Dude I dont care WHO they cast for the role, thats my point. Keifer Sutherland, Angela Basset, J-Law, Chris Evans, Ken Wantabe, I don’t care. Thats what moving beyond racism means. I been watching these shows all my life, Star Trek has ALWAYS had a diverse cast, thats why I watch it.

            I BELIEVE in diversity because I live in a diverse country who spends its days telling other countries to be like us so yeah put your money where your mouth is. But my definition of diversity has NEVER been about finding people who like me on a show or film. The point of diversity IMO is to look for people who ISN’T like me. Thats what diversity means and why people get it so wrong.

            But I’m not the one MOANING about it. I just get sick of the people who claims its some wicked PC agenda when it happens to be a POC or woman from Finn to Jynn, thats all.

            Look we agree more than we disagree, OK? So thats great. I guess I misjudged you base on your first reply to me but mainly because it sound like you misjudged me.

            ALL I’m saying is if they had cast someone like Chris Evans for the role NO WAY would we be discussing this. Zero, zip, none. First black woman to lead a Star Trek show and shocking, Or not shocking at all. 😉

            BUT look end of the day I know the VAST majority of people don’t care and actually looking forward to seeing her in the role, especially if you watch TWD. Thats the thing, most of us like her because we are familiar with her work on a very popular show. The fact she is black and a woman is just a bonus but its SO insulting that a woman who has been working in Hollywood for 15 years only got it on the basis of the fact she’s black according to some idiots and not on the fact shes actually a GOOD ACTRESS.

            So yes sadly still some ways to go. Hopefully in 20 years this will all be moot.

          • Ace Stephens

            (You don’t have to read anything if you don’t want to, obviously. So you can ignore this if you want. Maybe someone else will get it. Maybe you’ll reply and rip me a new one…I don’t know.)

            I’m talking about writing in general for ALL mediums: Novel, plays,
            comic books, etc. Most of these people wouldn’t be good at their job if
            they didn’t give SOME background or specific traits. Thats what writing
            IS. Visual medium is a bit different obviously but yes as you just said
            even then MAJORITY of the time they already have the idea of the
            character in mind before casting it….that just makes their job easier.

            I can agree with this. But, again, you say things that fall into the realm of absolutes. I understand you most likely mean them figuratively (as the vast majority who use them do) but when you say “NOBODY” is doing whatever, stressing it so much, it tends to stress the literal meaning more. Which makes me think saying, “Well, maybe 5% don’t…” is a valid thing to point out (if that is or may be the case).

            I know it may seem pedantic or whatever but some people really do think “ALL this are THAT,” so, for those who I do think maybe we’re on the same page in some ways, I do tend to point out these things that can seem…like I’m being a jerk to bother saying.

            …whats offensive is the second they are
            NOT white people claim its for ‘PC’ reasons as some morons here has.

            I agree that is rather absurd to be asserted without a quite clear basis.

            Thats the problem, you can’t even higher a person of color or a woman
            without people thinking its an ‘agenda’. Maybe it could just be, yeah
            social views have progressed since 1960s and people just want to put
            anyone they would like to see for the role. Seriously it can be as
            simple as that.

            I want it to be that simple in some forms and feel that we should try to progress that way. Without losing a sense of culture, personhood, etc. (obviously?). But I find what you’re saying somewhat odd as I know there are some people out there who politicize these things specifically because they (the individual “ranting” or the like), say, are a black woman and so they get upset about this stuff. It can get confusing at those rates as a lot of people assume everybody is this or that. And the sort of “politicization” they project (in some cases – in others, it’s likely there) onto stuff can sometimes dissuade studios or similar from bothering…so it can add to the problem. Which I find rather sad. I hate that sort of stuff and I’m often pointing out these…contradictions or confusing things.

            Dude I dont care WHO they cast for the role, thats my point. …Thats what moving beyond racism means.

            I agree in that sense. But I think some here feel (and, with some justification, given his comments) that Fuller seemed focused specifically on this or that, perhaps at the exclusion of all the relevant possibilities. And I can understand that (even though we’ve have plenty of “the relevant possibilities” for decades and decades…and centuries and centuries…). I don’t agree in this instance. But I can understand the concern and how it might be viewed that way at least somewhat reasonably in this case. I think there’s more nuance to these things than many allow. Yeah, sure, the most vocal (as in “LOUD!!! Everybody listen to me!”-sorts)/jerkish are likely just the bigoted but there’s more to this than that. And even if it has only a bit of validity, I don’t value it being written off just like I don’t like that type of thing when it kind of “goes the other way” too. For instance, maybe someone suggesting that a work featuring predominantly white people or “another random white guy” or whatever is inherently (on its own…somehow) a problem. And yes, I do come across those things.

            In terms of the arts, I believe in diversity, I think, for somewhat differing reasons to you. I just feel it increases the breadth/quality of stories told if we have more inclusion, ideas, experiences, etc. I mean, if the relevant thing is the artform or the like, that’s what I tend to filter the necessity through. Socially, the effects of art are…debatable in varying cases and I understand the argument there for more inclusion in order to reflect potential audience members but I feel it’s a bit like repeating the studios’ arguments of, “But we want mainstream audiences to latch onto this so…since most of them are white or accept white people, make the vast majority of the characters white!” I don’t like it when I see people going, “These tactics are bad. Let’s just basically do the same thing but point it in a different direction.” I can see the issue there.

            Even if I think maybe the goal, if I felt that could truly attain it, is admirable or actually one I agree with.

            But I’m not the one MOANING about it. I just get sick of the people who
            claims its some wicked PC agenda when it happens to be a POC or woman
            from Finn to Jynn, thats all.

            People project some notable/insidious “agenda” onto everything these days. It’s become absurd. “It’s the PC people!” and “It’s about omitting minorities!” and everything between and whatever. The notion that you can treat people like people, even if disagreeing (on immensely important things – even who counts as, in a sense, people…incredibly sadly), is largely lost.

            I guess I misjudged you base on your first reply to me but mainly because it sound like you misjudged me.

            Maybe I did. Maybe you did. Maybe I have more since. I don’t know. I’ve tried to be fair but probably failed at least a bit. I have to sort through why I’ve done that if I have.

            ALL I’m saying is if they had cast someone like Chris Evans for the role NO WAY would we be discussing this. Zero, zip, none.

            Arg. Absolutes. Capital letters. Etc. I think you and I might not be. But somebody would. Maybe only…5% as much but it would be out there. “Another random white guy? WTF happened to Fuller’s idea of diversity?!”

            The fact she is black and a woman is just a bonus but its SO insulting
            that a woman who has been working in Hollywood for 15 years only got it
            on the basis of the fact she’s black according to some idiots and not on
            the fact shes actually a GOOD ACTRESS.

            I agree that’s insulting and incredibly reductive from those who are presenting that. But I don’t think all questioning things from a similar range to those who present that are presenting that at all (or, if one is truly considering the argument in play, strengthening the arguments of those who do). And so I just want to make sure that we don’t wind up “mirroring” others by reducing ourselves to their level – that is, we don’t generalize others too severely or write them off for no reason or things like that (not that I’m comparing bigotry to random rude comments in a thread – I’m just saying if someone’s being narrow-minded to you, being it back almost always makes things worse, in my view). Again, I must self-reflect here on how I might have misinterpreted you or, when/if you did so to me, if I went too far or similar despite doing my best not to belittle or anything.

            I very easily can come across as a jerk who talks down to people. Writing huge essays about things and then shrugging it off as just ideas or something when people say I care too much can make me seem really overbearing and self-important even if, in terms of my intentions, I’m just trying to get ideas out there and talk to people. And, of course, sometimes I slip and say a genuine jerk thing. Because I think nearly all have that potential and I screw that up remotely often.

          • Eric Cheung

            In the case of Sisko, and Janeway, their racial and gender identity could not be divorced from who they were. Just because they live in a future where no one treats them worse because they’re black or female doesn’t mean they aren’t different. They absolutely have cultural differences that inform their decisions, even in a future of equality.

            The thing about prejudice that even Star Trek forgets is that fair treatment is something that will constantly have to be fought for. The danger of regressing to a more discriminatory time will always be there. Trek sometimes tackles that regarding aliens, but it will still be a factor for any difference between people.

            Sisko saw that in Vic Fontaine’s program that whitewashed the more troubled truths of 1960s Las Vegas. Perhaps some of that came from his experiences as Benny Russell, but I’m sure it was something grew up learning in history class. He knew that if we forgot the horrors of America before the Civil Rights Act and before desegregation, then even the Federation could some day revert to that.

            But referring to real-world discriminatory practices when talking about casting, there are a few issues at play:

            One is that the playing field simply is not level for actors of color. Straight white male actors are still considered the default, so there’s still a barrier when it comes to convincing several layers of bureaucratic hierarchy why they should hire someone outside that paradigm. They’re notoriously conservative in that regard, and see deviation from the formulas they know as potential profit-margin losses, even in the face of successful franchises like the Fast and Furious movies that have massive box office success with a diverse cast.

            Making it easier to hire actors of color may seem to betray a bias in their favor, but it must be placed in the greater context of the industry. If that is a bias, it’s a relatively small one compared to the larger biases favoring whites. Actors of color often have to justify their existence. Watch the Master of None episode “Indians on TV” on Netflix for more on the subject. It tackles the trouble two Indian American actors have trying to become regulars on the same show. White actors rarely have to fight against the perception that a show can’t have more than one of them for fear it would be seen as a niche.

            Another factor is that stories about racial, gender, or sexual identity experiences simply can’t be told with straight white male actors portraying the protagonists. It would mean the use of things like blackface and yellowface. This means that the only honest way to tell such stories is to have representatives on both sides of the camera or stage to be a check for the honesty of the story.

            For more on that, check out a play/film hybrid made for YouTube called Yellow Face. Part 1 is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Krlv9cyn9Hc. Part 2 is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at8wAKlZEeg. I was actually in a production this summer where I played David Henry Hwang’s father, as well as several other parts (http://officeofwarinformation.com/current-production/). In the dramaturgical notes for the program, I listed a couple dozen examples of yellowface since the chronological start of the story, which starts in the early 1990s.

            POC are getting discriminated against when they can’t even be cast to play characters they look like. The closeness they have with those experiences is priceless, and can’t be replaced with even the greatest of actors.

            You’re right in that there’s probably no truly fair solution. But there are equitable ones. That’s why it’s important to make the deliberate choice to cast non-straight-white-males in more roles, even if it may be prejudicial against them.

          • M33

            My point mainly is I do not understand how legally the entertaiment biz can get the exception to discrimination laws when they are not given a legal exception to this rule.
            I am not saying it is right or wrong.
            It makes perfect common sense to cast characters as designed.
            I think it is unfortunately symptomatic of our times when we feel we MUST hire someone BECAUSE of their skin color, ethnicity, or sexually oriented behavior, even if they are white, caucasian heterosexuals.
            It is a different form of race favoritism, albiet one that is gone for good intentions in order to make things “appear more equalized”.
            In the end, it is still focusing on people race or traits instead of moving beyond it as an issue.
            My concern on this is that by continuing to focus on this approach, it will continue making these superficial traits a point of unnatural division. How are people ever supposd to get past race if all we ever do it bring it up constantly?

          • Eric Cheung

            The goal shouldn’t really be to move past race exactly, but to move past racism. That means that the conversation will always be there, but to tell stories about the Black experience, it requires Black people to be the tellers of those stories.

            There was the South Park episode (“With Apologies to Jesse Jackson”) where Stan couldn’t understand why Token was upset with him because Stan assumed he could simply understand the pain of Randy saying the N word on Wheel of Fortune in the context he did. Eventually Stan realized that he could never truly understand because it’s not an experience he could ever had.

            That’s not to shut the conversation down, but to go into the conversation knowing our own and each others’ limitations of perspective. Check out the Yellow Face videos I linked to above. The point of David Henry Hwang’s play is that the whole process is messy, and complicated, and no one’s completely right or wrong, but it’s something that will always need to happen. That’s why both sides of the camera need POC, to provide the stories and characters with the agency that gives them honesty.

            I understand that it’s discriminatory to be that specific in the hiring practices, but the alternative is not just discriminatory because it would favor whites, it further silences POC stories. The choice is a system that’s discriminatory but allows the underrepresented a voice, or a system that’s discriminatory and maintains the status quo of the powerful holding onto their larger megaphone. In that Kobyashi Maru scenario, the only equitable choice is the former.

          • M33

            I will certainly watch the videos.

          • SpaceCadet

            The entertainment industry isn’t exempt from discrimination laws, it just has to be proven and often that can be very difficult but not necessarily impossible. Usually it would take a whistle blower with inside knowledge that a casting director wouldn’t cast a particular actor because he was Black or she was Latino, etc. Again, this would be a situation where it was an open casting call for anyone to audition. If the production in question is specifically looking to cast say a woman, because it has to deal with pregnancy, you cannot then claim male actors are being discriminated against because a man playing a pregnant woman would be absurd.

          • M33

            Hey wait, Schwartzenegger played a pregnant woman!
            j/k

          • Eric Cheung

            If it you want to learn more about what it’s like for minorities in Hollywood, even with these practices that specify race in call sheets, check out this podcast. So, even under this discriminatory system that’s supposed to favor POC, Hollywood still goes out of their way to marginalize POC, specifically Asians in the context of the below episode. Bobby Lee talks about how Steven Yeun had to read for a five-line role, Margaret Cho talks about how Tilda Swinton reached out to her in an attempt to get her to tell the Asian community to stop being mad, and then Bobby Lee’s reason for getting MadTV.

            https://tigerbelly.libsyn.com/episode-71

          • SpaceCadet

            Speaking of Margaret Cho, and correct me if I’m wrong, but I think her sitcom was the last time and first(?) that an Asian-American was the star of her own American TV show. That was 22 years ago! Shameful.

          • Eric Cheung

            Well, on network TV. On TBS, there was a show with half-Asian comic Steve Byrne about him owning a bar with his Irish-American father, called Sullivan & Son.

            Then in the past couple of years there’s the show based Eddie Huang’s memoir Fresh off the Boat and Ken Jeong’s Dr. Ken, also loosely based on his life as a doctor.

            Things are looking up, but it’s no where near parity.

          • SpaceCadet

            Yeah, I had actually seen commercials or heard of those shows but none created a strong impression in my mind. I’m still waiting on that breakthrough Asian-American dramatic actor or actress that joins the ranks of the A-list.

          • Eric Cheung

            Of those, Fresh Off the Boat is the best by far, even if it’s an extremely sanitized version of the book. Check it out. The first season is the closest to the book, but it’s still funny if you take them for completely fictional characters. Beyond it being about the son of a Chinese immigrant restaurateur, it’s also like my generation’s Happy Days, so I enjoy for that reason too.

          • mythme

            Elementary, Doctor Ken, Fresh Off the Boat?

          • SpaceCadet

            Yes, these are a few examples. Better than nothing.

          • Ace Stephens

            I find your reaction far too nuanced for most to really “get” what you’re saying. They’ll try to shove it into their preconceptions about the limited scope of how someone can draw conclusions like disliking this casting because of…whatever.

            If Fuller had said absolutely nothing to that effect and just hired whomever he wanted (even being all the same actors we know of already), I don’t think there would have been this branch of fan reaction.

            I think there would still be some. But it would mostly be very casual fans or whoever. But yeah – your general point remains.

        • Ace Stephens

          All these idiots who keep saying the part should be given to the one who
          does the best, yeah, no duh but are people going to say that was true
          of the industry for the first 60 years of its existence?

          You say “idiots” because you’ve made up your mind already, which speaks toward the sort of narrow perspectives some have on these subjects, which I feel is what M33 was referring to. You don’t seem to acknowledge that you (presumably) actually agree with the endgoal of many of these “idiots.” Many I have seen discussing such subjects are not saying that this “merit-based” notion is how things were run in the past but suggesting that they want equality just as much as you do and so, now if people are legitimately suggesting that race should not be a determining factor as society moves forward, then there should be no focus on race as a determining factor. Otherwise, it’s not living up to Trek standards (in their view). And so they might perceive or have a feeling that things have been distorted or skewed here even if there may have been the availability of better actors (who were of a differing race, gender, whatever), just as you might look toward the previous sixty years (yes, a vast, vast amount more instances) and go, “This seems pretty friggin’ skewed for no apparent (logical/humanistic) reason regarding the cumulative nature of individual instances.”

          But if anyone seems to be suggesting, “We need to stop focusing on race as a determining factor in terms of perceiving quality…” and then appears as though they might be thinking we should focus on race as though it has an intrinsic link to quality as a performer/character (in a realm where our real-world human race isn’t very focal at all)…that opens up a far larger can of worms in terms of how they perceive the world. And this potential hypocrisy/contradiction/etc. is what some are noting.

          Of course, others are just rather bigoted.

          • Fctiger

            No I call only 1-2 people here SPECIFICALLY idiots. OK? They know who they are because I called them an idiot.

            If you think she’s not a great actress thats FINE, no one is pushing against that even if you disagree.

          • Ace Stephens

            I haven’t seen much of her work to my knowledge. I don’t doubt her ability as I have almost complete trust in those behind this.

  • Michael

    Please remember that there is a very good chance that the U.S.S. Discovery is a ship built by section 31 and crewed by 31, and is unlike any other ship that Starfleet uses. In this way we can see new uniforms, consumes, technology, and aesthetics that do NOT violate TOS canon, and can lead to interesting new “expermental” technology.

    I am told it has more firepower than a constitution class, better shields, faster warp, and most importantly – a cloaking device and the hull technology to mimic other ships visual presentation like the Romulans used in Archers time, but far more advanced. My source is also indicating that the technology used in the time of Archer that the Aenar was forced to control for the Romulans was captured by 31 during Archers time and developed. It is installed on Discovery and has Anear to run it – possibly piloting stealth shuttle craft of some time.

    This is going to be a multi themed show folks , and the spy theme is well in play my sources tell me .

    • Fctiger

      Wow that will be exciting if true. You mean kind of like the U.S.S Vengenace in STID? A ship designed completely by Section 31 and off the Starfleet books? Well it would explain Discovery but dear lord I’m praying they will change that ship by now. But I want the Section 31 plot SO badly!

      • Michael

        My source is leaning towards the ship being Starfleet, but is “compromised” by section 31 and is used for their purposes.

      • Michael

        The ship has undergone significant changes since the “teaser”

        • Fctiger

          MUSIC TO MY EARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Justin Olson

      What use is a mycologist aboard a spy ship?

      • Michael

        Poison I am told.

        • Justin Olson

          Sure, he slips blue poisonous mushrooms in visiting alien’s salads. That’s got Nick Meyer written all over it.

          • Michael

            Funny, but he is there for subterfuge poison creation the preferred method of a kill in the time period of discovery

          • Justin Olson

            Subterfuge Poison Creation is how Bret Michaels refers to his farts.

      • Michael

        Also, Doug Jones is playing an Aenar

        • Justin Olson

          Aenar aren’t a “new alien species to the Star Trek universe.”

          • Michael

            This one is special.. never said it was fully Aenar

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      “Chug!”

  • Fctiger
    • SpaceCadet

      Pretty AND she can act!

      • Eric Cheung

        I love that Jim Gaffigan joke. “She’s a double threat!”

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      I just hate it when someone shoots my photo after I eat blueberries.

  • Fiery Little One

    I’m going to be the odd one out on this one. Not because I don’t approve, far from it, but because I’m not familiar with her.

    • Fctiger

      Honestly I only knew her when I started watching The Walking Dead a few years ago. She’s been a lot of stuff but TWD is really her ‘big’ role I think. But I love her on that show. Just a great character: Strong, understated, fierce, vulnerable and smart rolled into one. She doesn’t play a ‘tough girl’ but she’s tough when she has to be. Its going to be great to see her the star of this even though it will be an ensemble like TWD.

      • Fiery Little One

        Good to know.

    • pittrek

      I don’t know ANY of the actors 🙂 I should probably start watching more American TV shows

      • Eric Cheung

        It wouldn’t hurt to watch Dazed and Confused and some Hong Kong cinema as well.

        • pittrek

          I only very rarely watch ANYTHING these days. I’m happy if I can watch something on youtube or my BD/DVD releases of shows I felt in love with when I was a kid.

      • Fiery Little One

        Doug Jones and Michelle Yeoh would be easier to track down due to the fact that they’ve done a lot of movies.

      • M33

        Haha.
        No! Don’t!
        You’re not missing much!!

  • James

    Seems like good news, and a sign that Star Trek is being taken seriously – I mean, they’ve gone and hired an actress from one of the most popular shows on TV right now. I’m still not in love with the prequel idea, but at least they’re hiring some good actors and actresses.

  • Zarm

    Interesting. I would be a little concerned – if I was planning to watch the show – about the sharing of time with another full-time series. Admittedly, the abbreviated format of modern series may make that possible… But I hear so many stories from Star Trek TV actors about the grueling schedule and the way to take things out of you, it doesn’t seem like we would be getting the best when someone is trying to commit to such series.

    Either way, a fine actress – if I am remembering the season of Once Upon a Time correctly. I had to look up the character on the wiki, but I seem to recall the village of that season being pretty strong.

    • Fctiger

      From what they are saying this show will shoot from Jan to May and its only 13 episodes so thats plenty for a show. TWD shoots in the summer and even then majority of the cast is rarely in more than half a season. AMC seems pretty cheap because they try hard as possible to keep their cast members appearing in a full season. I actually think out of the 8 episodes ran so far this season for TWD she was in 4 of them. It could actually be 3 and she’s a full time cast member.

    • M33

      You know, Doohan plays other roles during Star Trek, too. Granted, he was a side character in Star Trek, though.

      • Zarm

        Did he? I did not know that. I only remembered Takei, basically disappearing from season 2 to film The Green Berets.

        • M33

          Yeah, he had a small role in Man from UNCLE in 1966, amongst other things.

  • Pipe’sIDIC

    Woot! Woot!

    Nyota Uhura’s ancestor?

    • Eric Cheung

      The show is only ten years from TOS, so she’d be like her cousin at most.

      • Pipe’sIDIC

        Cousin or Aunt or Grandmama or someone who has been an inspiration to Uhura to become a communications officer in Starfleet.

        CBS/P has been reading comments here. Keep reading CBS, cast Melissa McBride as T’Pau.

        • Fctiger

          No offense but I never like the whole ‘this guy is related to that guy’ kind of characters. It works for Star Wars lol. But I think Star Trek its better to make the characters their own people and not just an ancestor of another one. Don’t get me wrong, I liked in Beyond when we found out the commander of the Yorktown base was an ancestor of Tom Paris but that was just a nice easter egg.

          I actually remembered hearing a rumor when TNG was starting one of the ideas was to have the ancestors of the original crew be the characters on board the new Enterprise (hence the next generation) I’m SO glad that idea never got far.

          • Pipe’sIDIC

            You don’t get it, Fctiger.

            Star Trek has been an inspiration to many people. Characters like Kirk are still, to this day and age, inspirations.

            And to have a character in DisTrek to whom our Uhura (who is an inspiration herself) got inspired by or one of her inspirations to be a communications officer in Starfleet is so powerful.

            That’s progressive. Its like passing of a legacy. Coming full circle of life.

            IDIC.

          • Fctiger

            What do you mean I don’t get it? I do I just think it makes the universe too small when you start making everyone relatives. But its not the end of the world either. I’m not saying I would be upset about it or anything I just prefer they stay away from making everyone cousins. I don’t need to know that Riker was the great great nephew of Scotty or anything.

            Anyway as said Dsc only takes place a decade before TOS so it wouldn’t be an ancestor, just a current relative when I would really hate.

          • SpaceCadet

            Exactly. It’s like he’s saying Uhura is a woman of color, Rainsford is a woman of color, therefore, ding ding ding! They must be related! Lol

          • Fctiger

            Right. And I think the posters intentions are noble but your example is why I prefer they stay away from stuff like that.

  • hooch

    She’s always been one of the bright spots in that otherwise drab show. This is exciting news.

  • Brian Thorn

    Having not watched more than one or two episodes of Walking Dead (my interest in zombies approaches zero), she’s a complete unknown to me. I wish her and the show well.

    • SpaceCadet

      I think once you see her in action you’ll be impressed or at the very least find her acceptable. On TWD she plays a hardened, tough character, but still compassionate and appropriately emotional when she reaches her breaking point (several people close to her die over the course of the series). Plus, she’s a very physical actress as she has to do a lot of action scenes. I think that experience will also help her out on DSC.

    • M33

      Never watched the show.
      Zombies are really terribly uninteresting to me.
      The Vulcan zombies on ENT were even worse…

      • Fctiger

        LOL I just rewatched that episode a few weeks ago. I dont know why but I REALLY liked it. It had such a nice horror vibe to it you don’t get a lot in Trek. It oddly felt like F.C. but yeah it probably didn’t make a lot of sense but its one of my favorites from that season.

        • M33

          Most horror for me is so predictible and unoriginal that I just can’t watch it. It feels cheap and unfulfilling. I get no joy from being scared or watching gore.
          But hey, we are all different.
          Viva la difference!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Thanks for your review of a show you categorically stated you “NEVER WATCHED.”

            Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

          • M33

            ???
            When did I review The Walking Dead, specifically?
            Because I find zombies uninteresting as a concept, that means I reviewed the show?
            I don’t find horror appealing to watch in most forms.
            Same with sappy soap operas.
            I was referring to a genre, not TWD specifically.
            Not understanding the comment.
            And what does Holiday Inn Express have to do with anything?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Fctiger: “I hate stuff with a lot of gore in it and torture porn. I have never seen a single Saw movie, Paranormal Activity, etc. None of that stuff has ever interested me. IN fact I purposely stayed away from The Walking Dead through most of its run for that reason.”

            M33: “LOL! ‘Torture porn’ Yeah, that is EXACTLY what that is!”

          • M33

            Again, you misunderstood my comment. I was referring to the type of portrayals in the genre that we were discussing, not TWD specifically.
            Many many films and shows have gratuitous scenes of gore and violence, and his calling it “torture porn” I thought was a brilliant summation of that form of entertainment.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Hmm. OK

          • Fctiger

            Actually to make this clear I generally HATE horror stories lol. Yeah I don’t like them at all. I can’t even remember the last time I saw a horror movie in a theater? It literally could be over a decade ago now. I hate stuff with a lot of gore in it and torture porn. I have never seen a single Saw movie, Paranormal Activity, etc. None of that stuff has ever interested me.

            IN fact I purposely stayed away from The Walking Dead through most of its run for that reason. I never liked zombie stories and from what II knew about it it sounded extra gory. Just by chance I watched a few episodes out of boredom 2 years ago when they ran a marathon of the show and I got hooked pretty quickly. The gory eating stuff was pretty rough for me at first and I didn’t think I could really watch it full time but yeah you become pretty desensitized to it so its not a big deal now. But thats what kept me from even giving it a chance.

            But with Star Trek, they do so few horror stories and they few they have done are pretty tame. Star Trek is not a gory/blood filled kind of show so its always fine to watch and it was just nice they did something different. I think that one and the Borg episode are Enterprise only two horror type stories but they were both done really well IMO but I know people are pretty split on the Vulcan one.

          • M33

            LOL! “Torture porn”
            Yeah, that is EXACTLY what that is!
            To me, the Vulcan one was like a “oh, we need a zombie episode” decision.
            The borg, even though the are zombieish, they are far creepier because they are tech-driven, hive-minded, quiet, ruthless, and still living. The horror part of it that gives them gravitas is their ability to rape the individual of their individuality in order to serve their collective desire and the person is fully conscious of their trapped existence the entire time.
            Intense and brilliantly conceived.
            Groaning mindless hungry Vulcans…
            not so much in my opinion.
            But I agree is was well-filmed. Although I would have preferred the absence of the constant typical strobelight effects.

          • Fctiger

            Good point about the Borg. And many people consider First Contact a horror story as well or at least a hybrid version of it. Before that film the Borg was never presented in a terrifying way. Ruthless but not the spooky vibe they were made in that film and it worked. I liked they stayed that way on Voyager as well.

            And I said the Vulcan zombies didn’t make a lot of sense but I did like the effect. But yeah you could see as hokey.

        • SpaceCadet

          I thought it was one of the better Enterprise episodes as well and one of the best attempts of Trek doing horror. Basically, The Living Dead meets Star Trek. The direction of the episode was excellent.

  • Robert Anthony

    I applaud this casting. It’s great news.

    But we’re just going to skip over the casting of the first original gay character in Trek cannon, announced earlier this week are we?

    • MattR

      That was announced last month, and was heavily reported.

      • Robert Anthony

        I pay attention, so I find it dubious that I missed something heavily reported. (I’m not being snarky. I swear.) …and now that I check, I stand corrected. But it’s not mentioned here that Anthony Rapp’s character is gay. The site I saw the news on was a story about George Takei being enthusiastic to see the character. I suppose I should be pleased that it’s was treated as a non-issue, but I (personally) was curious to find out which character would be gay, and it wasn’t addressed.

  • Matineer

    She certainly fits the part and, not having watched Walking Dead, I’ll have to accept the good reports of her performance on that show from many fans. A genre actor is always a plus. Looks like a good cast so far and I’m waiting to see the art direction now.

    • SpaceCadet

      If you have Netflix you can stream the show. She joins the cast in the third season. She gets to do a lot of dramatic acting and more to do the further along the show gets. Also, her character wasn’t even supposed to be on the show. The show is based on the comic books and she went to audition for an important character from the comics. She didn’t get the part but the producers were so impressed with her that they created this original character specifically for her!

      • Fctiger

        Wow I didnt know that. I dont read the comics but I assumed her character was in it. Yeah thats quite impressive.

        • SpaceCadet

          I don’t read the comics either and didn’t know that fact until yesterday when I read up some more on her bio! The interesting thing about the fact her character isn’t in the comics is that viewers of TWD have no idea when and how her character will die if at all.

          • Fctiger

            Oh gotcha! Yeah thats true she is one of the rare ones on that show who has no idea the fate of her character. Although now that she has this show a lot of people on TWD forms think she may be joining the walking dead if you get my drift by the end of this season. 🙁

            I really hope they keep her but yeah it is possible they may be killing her off and why she took this job.

          • SpaceCadet

            I’m assuming she gets killed off in the latter half of the current season. It’s already a big cast and they have to keep killing off members of it to make room for new ones and continue the sense of dread that anything can happen in that post-apocalyptic world. And from an actor’s standpoint, Sonequa doesn’t need to do TWD anymore. She’s the lead of her very own show now, and not just any show! Plus any role can get stale after a few years and I’m sure it’s no fun filming long hours outdoors during summers in Georgia.

  • M33

    Here’s a legal conundrum:
    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, sex, or ethnic origin.
    Yet casting agents repeatedly hire on the basis of race, sex, or ethnic origin.

    • Eric Cheung

      I don’t know about the legal arguments, but often it’s used as a loophole to cast white people while paying lipservice to casting non-white. Casting calls will cover themselves by calling for “Caucasian or any ethnicity” so they can say they didn’t discriminate when they end up casting a white person anyway.

      Below is a link to an analysis of the casting of The Last Airbender on exactly how the film was whitewashed using this technique:

      http://www.racebending.com/v4/campaigns/airbender/caucasian-or-any-other-ethnicity/

    • SpaceCadet

      I don’t think you can have discrimination in entertainment when you’ve written or otherwise created a character in mind that is supposed to be of a specific race or gender. If a work of entertainment is casting a character that is supposed to have specific physical characteristics then how is that discrimination? Where you do get into trouble is where you have an open casting call for a character that for instance isn’t race-specific but then the casting director doesn’t even consider actors of a certain race or races.

      • M33

        Your point brings up an interesting legal loophole, however.
        This would mean Hollywood decided to only write movies/TV that never have any particular group of people in them, they could get away with it because “it fits the stories they are telling”.
        It is a wonder how affirmative action never made it to Hollywood given that possibility.

        • SpaceCadet

          It really all depends on what the story is about and therefore context is crucial. If they’re doing a story on World World II and the bad guy are Nazis, then of course they’re not going to cast Black or Latino or Asian actors as Nazis. Obviously the casting director isn’t being is discriminatory, he just needs actors that look the part to be historical accurate. Another situation is with the search for a new actor to portray James Bond when the current guy retires. Idris Elba, who is an excellent actor and handsome and charismatic has been bandied about to take over but of course you get complainers saying that James Bond is supposed to be white and casting Idris is caving into political correctness. But really, why couldn’t James Bond be Black? He’s not exactly a historical figure is he?

          • M33

            Fair points.
            How does “minorities only” casting for Hamilton fit into it?
            And it was confusing that the Captain America film had a mix of ethnicities in joint service during WWII when actually the US had a strict “separate but equal” policy for its teams.
            Hollywood/Broadway seems to bend this rule quite a lot when they feel it suits them to do so. There is little consistency.

          • SpaceCadet

            It’s something called dramatic license. In works of fiction especially film and TV, you don’t have a strict adherence to historical fact. Take Captain America, we’re talking about a superhero movie here. It’s not exactly realistic. So yeah, the people at Marvel and Disney are going to be more inclusive and hire minority actors. It shouldn’t take the audience out of the story any more than a guy with superhuman abilities should. Hamilton isn’t exclusively minority actors but yes, the lead parts are. There’s a direct statement involved with that. It’s saying, hey, minority actors can play these historical white figures and still embody who and what they’re about while relating it to modern times. It’s almost like a middle finger to conventional casting and saying that yeah, a Latino can play Alexander Hamilton, and a Black man can play Aaron Burr and the story will still be effective. Cast white actors in these roles and the sense of irony is lost. A white actor will 100% get these roles in a historically accurate retelling of these events. Not so with minority actors. And it seems to be resonating with audiences being sold out through all of next year. I saw it myself and it was fantastic!

          • M33

            Hamilton is a great show, albeit not totally accurate.
            People forget Hamilton championed strict immigrations laws (such as the Alien and Sedition Act) and the electoral college amongst other things.
            I wonder if folks would be as excited if there was a Broadway production of Martin Luther King or Malcolm X with non-black actors playing the lead.
            I would really hope so.
            But, for me, I agree with Fuller.
            Looking at the roles of characters with a racial-blind/gender-blind prism really is the heart and soul of Star Trek.

          • SpaceCadet

            Right, but again my point was about dramatic license. I don’t think most people are going into the show expecting 100% historical accuracy. For that, read the autobiography. The casting of minorities in the production got a lot of minority youths to get interested in Broadway where they hadn’t paid attention to it before. There’s a message in casting the show the way it was. You mentioned wondering what the respond would be to shows that cast Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. with white actors. Well then I would ask, what is the statement behind that? Is there some kind of social message with that? We have so few American historical figures of color compared to white ones that why should these scarce roles go to white actors? Minority actors already face an uphill battle to breakthrough. Casting a white actor in a Black role would be like a slap in the face.

          • M33

            To be clear, I didn’t say “white actors”, I said “non-black actors” which is a fairly wide field.
            For me, it is a double-standard to celebrate people of one ethnic group for a role and feel insulted by the choosing of another ethnic group. I don’t really care which one you pick, it is not true equality.
            If you hire people for any role regardless of color, the message would be, “Hey, it is a message of what it means to be a person, not a category.” It would be an interesting social experiment!
            And the tendency for folks to lump all light-skinned ethnic groups together as “white” also doesn’t acknowledge the multitude of diversity within that group either. In America, it isn’t talked about much today, but “whites” of Irish, Polish, Jewish, Russian, French, German, Welsh, you-name-it descent all were equally prejudized against in the past. Prejudice existed in every culture in the world.
            The reason “white” is an amalgam today in the US is because the culture has had time to become homogenized into a common value structure that defines the “group”.
            In 100 or 200 years from now, that same homogenization will occur with most of the ethnicities in the US, too. What will matter more than anything else is common value structures, generally by nation or broader region.
            Within 500-600 years, the same will occur worldwide, and eventually someone’s “race” will be a matter of fascination for discussion to historians.
            There have been some interesting studies on this likely phenomenon.

          • SpaceCadet

            Okay, so instead of a white actor playing Malcolm X or MLK, say it’s an Asian or Latino person, I would again ask what the intent or statement behind that casting is when you could have gotten a Black actor for the role. It’s a lofty goal to one day be able to cast a role without regard to ethnicity but we’re not there yet because the playing field is not level. Minorities are at a distinct disadvantage to getting good non-stereotypical roles. As another example, Hollywood has been trying for years to make a live-action version of the seminal anime Akira. This work of fiction is distinctly Japanese in culture and takes place in Tokyo. And yet the studio heads want to whitewash the story and bring in Leonardo DiCaprio or the like to be the star. From a fiscal standpoint I get the idea to bring in an establish A-list star to appeal to the masses, but I would argue the story is so fascinating on its own that it will be a big draw regardless of whether it has an A-list actor in it. And because the story is so intrinsically Asian in origin, it is the perfect opportunity to employ Asian and Asian-American actors and give them something to do because I barely see any on TV or the big screen. To whitewash this story would be big slap in the face to those communities.

          • M33

            Please define what you mean by “the playing field is not level”.
            What would a level-playing field look like to you?

          • SpaceCadet

            Like the ethnic representation in starring roles on American television being proportional to their actual percent of the national population. For instance, there are only a handful of Asian-American actors on TV and I can’t think of a single one that headlines his or her own show. And no one can tell me it’s because they’re not qualified enough.

          • M33

            What about Rush Hour?

          • SpaceCadet

            That was cancelled. 😉 And even if it was still on I could have nit-picked and mentioned the guy wasn’t even an American but from England.

          • M33

            The racial percentage hiring dynamic you propose includes the nationality of the actors as well?
            So an America-First Hollywood policy?

          • SpaceCadet

            Yes, of course! Do you think Asian actors are having any trouble finding work in the Asian film industry? Of course not. The whole point I’m making is that here in America there is a distinct disadvantage for actors of a minority background to be cast and make it in the entertainment industry in spite of their talent. So no, the Jackie Chan, Jet Lee, etc. Asian martial arts/action star crossing over into American cinema does not represent strides of Hollywood to cast actors of minority background into its entertainment productions.

          • M33

            Statistically, the concept you propose actually lessens the chance for, say, “Asian-Americans”.
            They make up 5.6% percent of the total population.
            Yet currently, 6.6% of main cast members in TV shows are of Asian descent, 37.9% of shows have at least one Asian descent cast member, and 7.8% of shows have multiple Asian descent.
            By your proposal, “Asian-Americans” would only ever be allowed 5.6% of the acting opportunities available.

            It would seem that this group are actually getting more opportunties than their “percentage” of the population.

          • SpaceCadet

            Thanks for citing the statistics and that’s certainly wonderful for the 1% representation over the actual percentage of the population but as I’ve alluded to in another posts, it would be great if there were more Asian-American actors that were the lead of the shows on which they are featured and not just supporting characters. Likewise for the motion picture industry where you have no Asian-American actors that headline a big budget motion picture or even low-budget for that matter.

          • M33

            Found some other interesting statistics from the US 2010 Census for population demographics:

            Non-Hispanic White

            196,817,552

            63.7 %

            Non-Hispanic Black
            37,685,848

            12.2 %

            Non-Hispanic Asian
            14,465,124

            4.7 %

            Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native
            2,247,098

            0.7 %

            Non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
            481,576

            0.2 %

            Non-Hispanic some other race
            604,265

            0.2 %

            Non-Hispanic two or more races
            5,966,481

            1.9 %

            Hispanic or Latino
            50,477,594

            16.3 %

          • SpaceCadet

            Ok, and there can still be more Asian/African/Hispanic-American actors starring in their own TV shows and movies. I don’t think that’s really debatable.

          • Ace Stephens

            I question this as well. But since I get the impression SpaceCadet thinks I’m trying to antagonize them, I’ll direct this toward you since you seem skeptical of these concerns in a manner similar to my own.

            Even on a level playing field, you will have people who just aren’t as good, even if one is referring to proportional representation (odd I see SpaceCadet citing that here while denying it to me elsewhere but I guess they didn’t specifically mean it in the other instance). So, if truly “merit-based” or the like, maybe fewer Asians just happen to be cast than are “representative” of the proportion of the national population (because maybe, on average, fewer go into acting – I don’t know). Or fewer white people (although the sheer percent within the population makes that unlikely). Or fewer…Hispanic people who are missing an eye and have a significant lisp. You know? What percent of the population is that? Very little? Does that mean that person shouldn’t get a role? If someone suits a representative notion by being Hispanic and are the only person immediately available (highly unlikely but let’s say it’s true) but can’t act then do they get the role anyway?

            Maybe, for whatever reason, 10% fewer white actors are, on average, considered good when compared to the percentage within other ethnic groups – but those white actors still survive because there are so many of them within the population percentage that they can persist and still get some jobs or whatever. You might have many white people just being awful on a “level playing field” to the degree that, if casting directors are casting quality actors then the resulting shows – by featuring fewer white actors than “necessary” – are not “representative” of the population.

            Doesn’t this make sense as the type of thing that will come up and prevent almost anything from ever being truly “representative”? I get the impression some people think “representative” and “level playing field” are directly correlated in some form and I find that they’re simply not and it’s a mistaken idea to believe they intrinsically are.

          • M33

            Basically what is being suggested to us as a level playing field is “affirmative action” in casting (although interesting they stated for leading roles only).
            The dichotomy is that this is an attempt to combat perceived prejudice with mandated prejudice, even though the intentions are intended to be beneficial.
            In the end, some group of people are going to be prejudized against strictly on their superficial qualities.
            But the concept become even stickier because it is lumping vastly diverse groups of people into similar shades of skin colors (aka the erroneous concept of “races”) and giving or denying opportunies to people based solely on this fixed trait that a person has no control over.
            That in itself is in definition “racism”, regardless of whomever it benefits.
            By mandating percentages based on national demographics, let’s say a casting agent hires 10% of a cast as “Asian”. What if there is another person who is an amazing actor, understands the role perfectly of a certain yet to be hired character, but are told “Sorry, bub, we got our Asian quota, but we haven’t filled our white quota yet, so sorry, we gotta pick a white person”?
            It is easy to say, yes, let’s mandate diversity, but the problem is the unintended consequences of permanent making all person a subject of being discriminated on based solely on something they cannot change about their physical appearance.
            Even if it was mandated, does anyone seriously think that a person of Filipino ancestory will feel “visually represented” by the hiring if an east Indian ancestory actor, when they have completely dissimilar featurs even though they are technically considered “Asian”?
            What about people who are of mixed ancestories? Are they hired by the features that happen to be more prominent? What about people who have a percentage of “Asian” ancestory but predominately look “white”. Are they to chosen as Asian or white?
            What about gays? Are they to be defined by percentage, too, even though gays have no defining physical characteristic?
            What about bisexuals?
            What about short people?
            Some say it is to represent their cultural experience. But what about an Asian child brought up in a white home?
            Or a black child brought in a Hispanic home?
            Isn’t the culture we are raised in far more impactful to who we are as a person than what shade of color we are?
            And if it is, is this part of the equation when casting?
            The dubious mechanics of this concept simply cannot ever truly “represent” the true scope of diversity that exists, and as you correctly put it, it is not humanistic in the least. It is a mental falsehood to expect people to shallowly find comfort in a person’s superficial look.
            I feel as baffled as Kirk did in Let That Be Your Last Battlefield when the two guys were trying to explain how important the subtle physical differences were between them.
            Star Trek sees beyond this.

          • Ace Stephens

            Thank you. I was wondering if my concern was clear or not. It seems it is. I think much of the divide here is based on that concern – some think it is beyond that, others don’t, others think the show is but society isn’t so suit society while others think suiting society is the problem or all of this. Although, I believe, the vast majority complaining here about this news or in response to those complaining want the same fundamental thing – it’s just that the circumstances and framing surrounding it are in the way and so they start “choosing sides” or basing things off of rather narrow-minded generalities or things like that.

            I’ve never understood this “fire with fire” stuff as any sort of long-term manner of dealing with things. If you feel that many have not been considered because of their race/gender/etc. due to unfair biases, both subconscious and otherwise (systemic, broader social generalities, etc.), I don’t think implementing an oppositional “mandate” (even if just a psychological one) that basically does the same thing – only perhaps consciously and with less regard for knowing it may not be “the right thing to do”…has any potential to help. It might “fix” an immediate sense of something on an individual basis but, over the long-term, I think it will just polarize, confuse, etc.

            I think short-term gains at the expense of long-term goals is…antithetical to what Trek seeks in these regards and so it frustrates me to see this subject addressed (in a manner that I consider to be) so poorly by many here.

          • M33

            I agree with you totally on the concept being a “short-term fix” that doesn’t ultimately resolve the matter in the long-run.
            I mean, as an avid Star Trek fan, I cannot imagine the Federation or Starfleet having such hiring practices.
            It is antithetical to their entire philosophy.
            Do we see Starfleet staffed with different Federation species by percentage of their population in the UFP?
            No, I don’t think so.
            It is because the concepts of individual liberty and individual choice are the paragon of their society. Peoples of all species and backgrounds selected for their tasks (including Starfleet service) by their ability alone.
            That, in my mind, is true utopia.

          • SpaceCadet

            Several things – and I don’t speak for everyone obviously, but I don’t expect Hollywood to cast everything in proportion to the ethnic makeup of this nation. Rather, I think it is a goal to shoot for, and I surely appreciate the attempts at diversity in entertainment. Star Trek is particularly adept at this and has often been a trailblazer in Hollywood which isn’t a surprise given its very progressive nature. A multi-ethnic and multi-gender cast is a wonderful thing. A captain or lead of the show who is a woman or a person of an ethnic minority is even more impressive because it shows us how far we have come as a society that a show would even be cast that way and because it still is relatively uncommon. It also shows us a future to strive for. I’m a mixed race person myself. I don’t expect every race to be represented on the cast of a show or even Star Trek. I’m not Black nor a woman but I rejoice when I see a Black woman cast as the lead of this show because it’s never been done on Star Trek before and still far too few women of color headline their own shows. I’m a gay man and I am super excited that finally a gay character has been created to exist in Trek because it is a first and will undoubtedly be a positive representation of this minority. Yes, in the future, probably and hopefully the human race won’t care about such things as what race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation you are, but we are far off from that, and that is why minorities seeing themselves represented positively in entertainment is a very powerful, important, and inspiring thing.

          • Fctiger

            Exactly!

            I just find this entire discussion a bit ridiculous. Everyone already seem to acknowledge Star Trek was based on very specific notion that humans will not only survive in the future but will thrive to the point that things like racism, poverty and disease would be wiped out. Everyone also seem to acknowledge Roddenberry pushed for Star Trek to be innovative and at the time just having not just a diverse cast but one where everyone was equal to one another was a big deal. Now I’m sure he wasn’t the first one to do it, just at a time when there was so much conflict and hate in the world. That resonated with a lot of people ESPECIALLY if you were a minority because there just wasnt a lot of that back then.

            But that message gave people like me such a rich and different outlook to everything. I was about five when I watched TOS. I was a black boy who grew up in Compton, I only saw non-black people basically on TV most of the time until I got older. I saw nothing but violence around me growing up. Most people I knew never thought they would make it to being an adult. It might sound cheesy but Star Trek was the one show I connected with because I saw how different things could be. When you live in hell you think there is nothing else even if it is. But thats why art can influence people in such a positive way.

            But yes it was Star Trek that taught me that no matter the differences we are all the same. I liked the idea of the Federation, its basically the U.N. at the end of the day. Its not all peaceful but its always thriving for the idea of peace.

            The show is important because it broke down barriers. Again not the only one to do it just one of the more effective ones. Star Trek has told so many people who feel so different or outside of societal norms that they should feel valued. Thats why it has endured as long as it has.

            The show is about multiculturalism, if you ignore that you are ignoring what the show is about and I don’t mean just humans, in context of Star Trek that includes a galaxy of people. Thats why its so silly to me. THATS the show.

            I’m a straight black male, I don’t want to watch a show with just black people all the time. I watch them but thats not ALL I want to see either because thats not the real world.

            I like to watch things that gives me a different experience, different people, different ideas. I was so happy to learn we had a black woman as the lead because as you said its the first one. If it was tenth one I doubt I would care. But thats the thing if it WAS the tenth all the people hollering about it now wouldn’t care either or make up all these issues about it. Thats how progress works.

            I say it over and over again if its a white male people would just shrug. Yes SOME may have an issue with it but I’m trying to think hard when did someone suggest an actual boycott because a white guy was starring in something? This only happens when its a minority, women or gays appear in something and thats so damn sad to me. Garret Wang who played Harry Kim on Voyager said Paramount got death threats when it was announced the show would have a woman Captain. BOMB THREATS!! And these are Star Trek fans? Wow.

            But I would be just as excited if he was an Korean Captain or a gay Captain or an Iranian Captain. I didn’t get excited because she was black, I got excited because she was different, period. Same time if she was a white male I still be happy about it, its just more exciting when its doing something you never done before. But thats what Star Trek is to me and I thankful the people who run it still get that. Thats why I was so excited for Janeway and Sisko. It was just different.

            But I have no idea when it became an issue for Star Trek? For most fans this was just par for the course.

          • SpaceCadet

            That’s a great personal story and that’s awesome to see that you were so inspired by Trek. I grew up on TNG and from that point on Trek has always been my television comfort food. I didn’t come out to myself as gay until years after TNG ended, but watching an episode like “The Outcast” in reruns as flawed as it was, was reassuring to me that “yeah, it’s okay to be different” and “being different isn’t hurting anyone”. I think it’s actually just a vocal minority of people who have issues with the casting of DSC. You have your commentators who are just blatantly racist or sexist, and those are the “stop being so PC, it shouldn’t matter who they hire” crowd. I believe that latter group has come from a place of privilege where they have either never witnessed nor first-hand experienced discrimination so they don’t appreciate the significance of minority representation in a cast. The reasoning of “well, in the future they wouldn’t care what race or gender captain you are so the producers or directors should just cast anyone” doesn’t really fly. Star Trek has and is supposed to be a reflection of our contemporary times and social issues we still struggle with. I think some people forget that.

          • M33

            I live in a multi ethnic culture in Hawaii.
            Prejudice exists here too, and I have had many many instances of being prejudized against.
            I grew up in a multi ethnic trailer park community on the mainland.
            How exactly is that “privilege”?
            There is also economic prejudice that is just as damaging as racial prejudice.
            The point is that the message of Star Trek is to see beyond it.
            That is inspiring and that I how I view people and the world.
            If I continue to confine myself to superficial traits as a way to define myself or others, what would ever cause me or others to view people beyond those points?
            Ar what point does the change actually occur?
            If not in my lifetime, then whose?
            Change begins with us.

            BTW, I enjoy the discussions.
            Glad to converse.

          • SpaceCadet

            Thanks for sharing your perspective as well and I also enjoy the conversation. I’m not saying you in particular are privileged, but I am generalizing about others who dismiss the importance of a person of minority status having a place on the bridge of the Enterprise or Voyager or Discovery because they don’t comprehend the significance of said character to the minority viewing audience. I think a great story Avery Brooks likes retelling is why he took his starring role on DS9. At a time when there was an epidemic and a lot being heard in the news about young Black men growing up without fathers, Avery wanted to show a positive depiction of an African-American father and son that were close and there for each other and taking place in the future no less. Very inspirational stuff and having a cultural resonance that might not have been there or have been as significant if Jake and Benjamin Sisko weren’t embodied by African-American actors.

          • Fctiger

            I think people who says race or gender wouldn’t matter in Star Trek are kind of missing the point thats the show, not the reality of TV/Film production or else there would be a LOT more of everyone on from Asians to Middle Eastern.

            And I think today they do try to cast more widely because society has become a lot more open. But then whats crazy when they do it then yeah you get the ‘PC’ argument which is frustrating as hell. Sometimes I actually feel sorry for Hollywood because if they only cast mostly white people they are accused of racism but then they try to represent the real world and cast others they are accused of pandering. You just can’t win with this attitude on either side.

            But ultimately it comes down to money. As long as people watch they will go that direction and yes because you can now have women, minority and gays as leads and people watch does prove things have changed a great deal and why they are cast in the first place. Believe me, they don’t cast for ‘PC’ reasons if not enough people watched over it. They are, thats the point and why these people are losing this battle. Yeah its still a looooong way to go but it is a different landscape than it was from a few decades ago. And it will only improve in time. That is the one beauty of America and that is once progress happens its never taken away. Thats why when people say idiotic things like gay marriage will now be annulled now that Trump is in office have no idea what they are talking about. And Trump even knows that (who I don’t think remotely cares about gay marriage but he’s a politician now) and basically said as much. So yes that is the beauty of progress. When it happens it only improves with time.

            And yes Star Trek is a reflection of our society. That was the entire point. Everyone on that show, aliens included, was suppose to mirror a sub section of our culture in some way. Maybe not always directly or obvious but it was allegorical. And it never said Star Trek was a perfect society, think of all those Captains and Admirals who go rogue in these shows lol. In STID an Admiral tried to blow up the Enterprise so he can have war with the Klingons. Sisko was going to poison an entire planet of colonists just to get a terrorist to surrender. Its still not perfect, but society as a WHOLE has improved thats all. We are better people today than we were several centuries ago when slavery, imperialism and wars ruled the day. We still sadly have all of that today but not close to the level back then.

            Even under Star Trek the planet didn’t unite until after a nuclear war so its never been this happy go lucky utopia people who DON’T watch it accuse it of. It simply says we have evolved enough to acknowledge our flaws but strive to live in a more united world where not everything is based on borders, ethnicity, religion and economics but mostly ideas and a shared purpose. Its still a society I wish we could have today.

          • SpaceCadet

            Agreed. I’m sure we’ll see a lot of socially relevant dramatic conflict on DSC. And I’m really excited to see how the rest of the cast turns out – I believe at least 5 more characters are left to reveal.

          • Fctiger

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe7axuTmoUg&t=707s

            Here is a video I always like to share everytime people forget what Star Trek is TRULY about. Its fan made but its so well done highlighting everything we think of when we think of the culture of Star Trek and what that means. I know its getting a bit off track but I would suggest everyone here watch it.

            Dramatic conflict has obviously always been part of Trek and all the social, political, religious and philosophical issues along the way. And as been said whoever thinks Star Trek isn’t about diversity seems to forget what IDIC means. Thats what everyone should strive for in society because that IS our society regardless.

          • M33

            Thanks for sharing.
            Here’s one of my favorite moment’s which I think sums up Star Trek, direct from Uhura’s mouth:

            https://youtu.be/ev_i0HnDQ0w

          • Fctiger

            You know I think I seen that episode maybe once or twice in my life. Thank god for Netflix. 🙂 Will give it a rewatch. But yeah it does sum up Trek even though oddly its Spock out of all people who loses his temper a bit when you call him names…or talk about his dead mom lol.

          • SpaceCadet

            Great clip! Thanks for sharing and definitely a nice summation of what Star Trek is about.

          • M33

            I love having robust discussions!
            To be fair, the people that are reacting poorly are the very few.
            What most of all of our discussions are is really a classic example of antithetical parallelism.
            We all agree on the same end point meaning but have differing “texts” of thought on how that is acheived.

            Two comments for your consideration.

            I think of the Federation more as the United States than the UN.
            The UN is an unelected government-appointed body accountable to no one that allows nations of practially all types as its members including ruthless dictators that oppress their people and yet put them in the same stage as those who cherish liberty and liberal democracy. Furthermore, the UN is a bloated ineffective bureaucracy.
            The Federation has clear “being rights” rules for planets to become members. They also have to be technologically advanced enough, and their societies have to be at a certain level of maturity before they can even be considered. In effect, the Federation is actually a collection of global “states” instituted in the form of a federal form of electable government and the majority decisions affect the rules on every member world.
            They wouldn’t call it a Federation if it wasn’t federal.
            Ultimately the UFP requires a common value structure for all members. The UN does not really have this absolute mandate. Whereas the United States, for instance, has a common value structure based on individual liberty and the freedoms to live as one chooses.

            I do not think “multicultural” is the right term for Star Trek.
            I think “interculturalism” may be more correct.
            Interculturalism is the response to criticisms of existing policies of multiculturalism, such as criticisms that such policies had failed to create inclusion of different cultures within society, but instead have divided society by legitimizing segregated separate communities that have isolated themselves and accentuated their specificity.
            Star Trek looks beyond all those differences and seeinf beings as beings, each with the right to individual liberty.

            Thoughts?

          • Fctiger

            I think most of the race baiters have all but left now and its just mostly rational people at this point discussing it now. In my opinion its not much to discuss but people have brought up some great points. Of course wait until the next announced cast member is from Pakistan and it will start all over again. 😉

            As for the Federation being America I don’t really agree because America is just one country and not a set of multiple governments with hundreds of different cultures and ideals which end of the day thats what the Federation is. Its planets but really multiple governments who agreed to work together. But I get your point its not quite today’s U.N. so lets call it a more evolved UN. 😉 I mean the Klingons are part of the Federation now (by the 24th century if not sooner). I can imagine when they joined considering the history of war with the Federation that they would originally considered to be more ruthless who doesn’t see all people as equal and still don’t quite share all the values that Starfleet does but enough to be accepted. But we can agree to disagree. Or maybe its closer to the commonwealth model of connected governments with some differences? I can see that too.

            And I think it would bother people not American that the Federation would be considered America. And a lot of people don’t think America as free as it always claims to be but thats a very different topic.

            As for your belief Star Trek is intercultural, I can go with that. That does make a lot more sense. 🙂

          • M33

            LOL on the Pakistani reference.
            Yeah, I’m all good for whomever.
            And the Federation as an improved UN is an interesting concept.
            There was a book called Trekonomics.
            I read it hoping it would also try to better explain the econo-socio-governmental structure of the Federation.
            But alas…
            I would love to read someone’s researched take on how Star Trek’s societies actually function.
            Haven’t found it yet.

          • Fctiger

            I think they keep it as vague as possible sort of like how Star Wars never really explain how the Empire rules over the galaxy exactly. They give you just enough to get a sense of it but not too much to hang themselves trying to hammer out all the details. They never never even say exactly how big the Federation is and who is in it. They always tout its 150 planets (at least by the 24th century) but who is actually in it is pretty vague beyond 1-2 dozen we do know.

          • M33

            In the 1960s, TV was overly weighted in favor of “whites”, which is why it was brilliant at the time for Roddenberry to show a spectrum of humanity in space, and humanity that had characters that were not defined by their skin color or ethnicity.
            But that was then, when mandated segregation was actually happening. It made sense to show, “hey, we CAN all get along as people based on merit judgments”.
            In today’s time, mandated segregation does not exist. It seems many people are saying there are hiring biases in the entertainment business, but this is a perceieved prejudice rather than a provable fact.
            As in my earlier posts, most ethnic groups/skin colors by fact are getting more roles in entertainment than their percentage of population (which is what you were trying to explain to me was the reason for “minorities” not having a level playing field) which means there is not likely a hiring bias.
            For instance, “blacks” make up 12-13% of US population but are hired for 15+% of roles in TV & film. This does not speak of a non-level playing field. In fact it would seem to prove otherwise that people of any color are most often being considered for their ability, not for their “race”.
            Consider MLK’s words here:
            “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
            That was over 50 years ago.
            No one on this thread has ANY problems with non-white people in roles, especially for Star Trek.
            What most of us are confused by is “Why is this still an issue”?
            Diversity is obvious through all forms of work and entertainments. So if this wall is already broken, why are people still talking as if the wall still exists?
            When Hollywood people state they are set on hiring by gender, race, etc, it does not honor MLKs intent or vision. If anything, it sets a mental framework that our outer color does matter. It doesnt.
            As far as people feeling “represented” by their color on screen, I point out Spock.
            Here is someone who played an alien, and his portrayal caused millions of people to identify with the character as someone who is “different”. Not just jews or white people felt this, but blacks, asians, hispanics, gays, nerds, immigrants, tall people, short people, etc. His character is what they identified with as a universal trait.
            That in itself is far more powerful than recognizing someone’s color, because it TRANSCENDS color entirely and speaks to the human condition.
            What I and many others are saying to Hollywood and others is Stop.
            Stop talking about race.
            Just hire whomever you want!
            The “issue” only continues to be an issues because it is made a point of division to recognize.
            If children were never told these differences were important, they would only ever see each other as people the same way we see various shades of cats and think only “cat”.
            By reinforcing the importance of difference, we will never escape it.

          • SpaceCadet

            Sorry, but I think that is a naive world view regarding the current state of race relations and racial hiring practices. Yes, mandated segregation was abolished in the US decades ago but now racial discrimination exists more subtly and behind people’s backs. I work in real estate and I’ve seen racism both blatant and subtle by other agents and landlords in who’d they consider to be their clients or tenants before even doing background checks. I regularly see in online dating profiles of people explicitly stating “no Blacks” or “no Asians” or “no Latinos” in who they’d consider as a potential relationship partner or even as friends! I even have family members who stereotype other racial/religious groups in spite of being an interracial family myself. So unfortunately no, we don’t yet live in a world that doesn’t look beyond our physical appearance. We haven’t yet achieved MLK’s dream. And I don’t think the point is to be color-blind but to appreciate and see the beautiful differences that we all have, because being different doesn’t equal uglier or weaker. And another thing regarding your citing of statistics – statistics in themselves are misleading and don’t paint the whole picture. For instance, let’s say that 5% of the national population is of Asian descent and we have this great # of 25% of the roles on TV being made up of Asians. If it turns out that all or most of these roles are stereotypical, or non-leading/secondary roles, then that’s not saying very much about the quality/level of work being available to this group. Again, that’s why it’s so ground-breaking and inspiring it is to have Sonequa Martin-Green be the main star of this series. There are so few women of color headlining a one hour dramatic television series where their character is in a position of power and their race or gender has nothing to do with their role. In the future world the show is depicting no one would or should bat an eye, but in current times you better believe it speaks volumes and resonates with minority audiences and even non-minorty members who can understand the significance.

          • M33

            I appreciate your perspective.

            Funny, when you talked about your family members stereotyping other ethnicities, it made me think of an interview Max Headroom did with Boy George.
            Check it out and queue to 3:11:

            https://youtu.be/oaHFAp4P5VU

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      It fully applies, but it’s nearly impossible to prove given so much latitude is given to the writers/directors creative vision and source material for the characters to be cast. That’s why it’s essentially never litigated

      • M33

        That, and most actors don’t have the money to sue the big studios to make things right either.

        • Ace Stephens

          *cough*And if you sue over something like this – particularly if you lose – but don’t have a decent track record then the odds of you finding new work when people discover that you’re litigious – even if it’s “justified” – significantly decrease.*cough*

  • Peter Deluka

    But shes black?

    • M33

      It is funny to me that amongst all this conversation, people here have completely ignored your comment.

  • Robert Garth

    I dont care who they cast, but I think she is a very good choice. The problem is when Fuller said he is pushing Diversity over story. Just make a good show, shut up about diversity and just put people who are qualified, black white asian, arab , jew what ever. In the future I hope this will be a thing of the past.

    • SpaceCadet

      Here we go again. Being a good show and being diverse aren’t mutually exclusive things. The whole point of Star Trek is to reflect a humanity in the future where all genders, races, ethnicities, etc. are equal and not discriminated against. That’s reflected in an integrated crew, most notably the senior staff. It’s not a big deal in the future but in these times it is a big deal because we as race sadly are still divided as ever over our physical differences. So yes, the whole point is to be diverse as a statement against modern times. That’s why it was so groundbreaking to have Uhura and Sulu on the bridge of the Enterprise in TOS, why it was so historical to have the first interracial kiss on a dramatic TV series when such things were taboo, why it was so important to have the first Black lead of a Star Trek series, and then again with the first woman captain, and why it is again groundbreaking to finally have the first woman of color as the lead of a Star Trek series, not to mention the first ever original gay character too. Believe me, gay people want to see themselves as being represented and existing in the future and this is the perfect vehicle to do so.

    • Fctiger

      Star Trek has been pushing diversity literally since 1966. Why are you people shocked now? So if he DIDN’T say the word you would be ok with it?

      And it will be a thing of the past when there is 100% equality for everyone. Unfortunately we its not so. But I dont think that has anything to do with Star Trek. Thats ALWAYS been the ideals of the show. Why are people moaning about it now??? Thats what Star Trek is.

      • Robert Garth

        No he said it was more important than the story.

        • Fctiger

          As if that would have any effect on the actual story. You do realize they been writing the scripts for literally MONTHS now right? Before anyone has been even cast so what difference does that make? Fuller isn’t even the guy who picked these actors, other producers did. He wrote his scripts long ago and hasn’t been on the show for over a month now.

          You’re trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

          • Robert Garth

            Yea thats it. You have judged me so well. I forgot Star trek isnt about stories. I said i like her you didnt even read my post. I dont care who is cast. I want storied over oushing an agenda.

          • Fctiger

            Where did I ‘judge’ you?? I simply said you’re making a mountain out of a molehill. Dude Fuller already WROTE the scripts months before they cast anyone so that makes absolutely no sense.

            If it was THAT important he would’ve cast them first, right? Obviously the story comes first regardless of who is actually cast, agreed?

          • Robert Garth

            He said this last year.

          • Fctiger

            That makes no sense because the guy didn’t even join the show until February of this year.

          • Robert Garth

            He had been working on it since 2009 trying to get it going. Race is a big motivator for him.

          • Fctiger

            What the hell are you talking about? You are just pulling this out of your you know what. The show was announced in 2015. There was nothing to work on in 2009 because there was no show. And when this was announced it was Alex Kurtzman who was picked to actually develop it, not Fuller. Fuller came in much later.

            And I watch most of Fuller shows, race hardly played a role in any of them. His latest show Hannibal (which was amazing) had a total of two minority characters which he killed off one in second season (which ironically people accused him of being racist over it–go figure). The rest were white.

            Stop acting like Fuller spends his days making shows highlighting race and sexuality all the time. None of his other shows ever did that. Star Trek is different because diversity has, once again, ALWAYS been part of the show. But all his previous shows the majority of characters including the main one has been white. You just seem obsessed with the idea he’s obsessed with the idea when there is absolutely anything in his shows that

          • SpaceCadet

            Some people just need to find a reason to complain about anything. As if Star Trek can’t have both good stories and feature a diverse cast all at the same time. He may not care who they cast, but a lot of people do. I can only imagine all of the young Black boys and girls who will be inspired by Sonequa being the lead in a big-budget science fiction show, just as Whoopi Goldberg and Mae Jemison were directly influenced in their career path by witnessing Nichelle Nichols as Uhura. And I can only imagine all of the gay kids, closeted, depressed, suicidal, whatever, and seeing an out gay actor portray a gay scientist in the future and think, “hey, gay people will exist in the future and no one will make a big deal out of it.”

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I fully agree with you guys on the diversity merits here, but as I pointed out above, for GR’s launch of TNG, he did seem to prioritize showing us the Federation’s “near-prefect society” over quality stories and character conflicts — that is pretty much an acknowledged fact in Trek history. So I do think Robert could have a point here that should not be dismissed so quickly as say Michael’s regular whining about diversity here.

          • Fctiger

            Yeah but I don’t really see the same thing happening here. And everyone knows Roddenberry had a very strict view of what humans would be like in the 24th century which hindered a lot of the writing when he was in charge. Once he left they got away from that little by little and DS9 and Voyager were made with the ideas NOT to do as TNG started as.

            And Fuller already made it clear he wants to go back to the 23rd century vibe. And I wasn’t trying to dismiss him but he seem to think all Fuller wants to do is highlight race as if thats all that mattered to him. But if you look at the guy resume INCLUDING all the Star Trek stories he wrote he doesn’t actually write stories around these topics. Roddenberry was obsessed with those types of stories all through his career.

            Fuller on the other hand never has since he left Trek. There maybe one here and there but its not like its some kind of theme to his overall work. In fact if you just look at the shows he produced and wrote you would never remotely get a sense of that. Many of us was excited for Fuller BECAUSE he tells amazing stories first and foremost. We are just going on all the work he’s done since his time on Trek and its a lot of great story telling there ALONG with good characters so I’m not worried about the rest. My guess is the diversity factor is important to him but he wants to tell interesting and different stories he’s done throughout his career.

            And of course Fuller isn’t even in charge anymore, others are, which oddly people somehow seem to keep forgetting and there doesn’t seem anyone else there who obsessed with these topics so its sound mostly much ado about nothing. Most probably just want to tell kick ass stories Trek is known for.

          • Robert Garth
          • Fctiger

            Ok I see what you mean now. Uh, two things:

            A. He was just stating he had an idea for the show, he wasn’t WORKING on anything. You said he’s been working on it as if he hired people and developed something to show the studio. He did no such thing, he said he had an idea, apples and oranges.

            B. You pointed this out because you said he was highlighting race as part of this idea. Here is the entire quote:

            On 2 March 2009 Fuller told iF Magazine that he is pushing for a new Star Trek TV series based on “old style” Star Trek. In the interview he stated that “I told my agent and told the people of J.J. Abrams’ team I want to create another Star Trek series and have an idea that I’m kicking around. I would love to return to the spirit of the old series with the colors and attitude. I loved Voyager and Deep Space Nine, but they seem to have lost the ’60s fun and I would love to take it back to its origin.”

            So um, where did Fuller say anything about race or ‘diversity’? All he talked about was a basic idea for a show. He didn’t mention anything about a character or race. So you just pulled that out of your you know what, right?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Actually, you may have a valid point — please see my response to you above about GR making a similar mistake early in TNG.

        • Justin Olson

          When and where did he say that?

        • Eric Cheung

          Yeah, I’d also like to see where he says that diversity is more important than the story. But I’d also like to see an instance where diversity ever made a story worse. I can’t really think of one. The more diverse the experiences of the cast and crew, the greater the fountain for stories.

          And story is frankly overrated anyway. Characters are more important than plot, because plot that drives characters tends to be far less believable than characters that drive the plot. The actions of a story must be motivated by the wants and needs of the characters and where those desires come into conflict with those of other characters, or with nature.

          At the risk of being reductionist, DS9 tended to follow the philosophy of characters driving plot. The writers let the characters speak to them and influence the direction the stories went. If something happened to a character in a previous episode, it strongly influenced how that character would react and act to a situation in a later episode.

          Other shows with a more procedural bent tend to have the plot drive the characters’ actions. An intricate puzzle or plot may be satisfying on an intellectual level, but it’s relatively shallow satisfaction if it doesn’t say something new about the characters as well.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Well you do bring up a valid concern here. With the first two seasons of TNG, we saw GR make the same error, and the stories suffered.

  • Vger64

    This show is really just taking me on a roller coaster ride.It started with the initial News reports. I get excited… then a new one depresses me… Then a new one comes out and I’m excited again… then back to depression… I am started to get excited again!!

  • M33

    Here’s the direct interview:

    FULLER: I’ve met with a few actors, and it’s an interesting process.
    There’s a few people that we like and we want to carry on what Star Trek
    does best, which is being progressive. So it’s fascinating to look at
    all of these roles through a colorblind prism and a gender-blind prism,
    so that’s exciting.

    (Interviewer Note: That’s what’s really exciting about this new show, and while Fuller didn’t come right out and say that the new Star Trek will have an LGBTQ character, he strongly implied it)

    (nterviewer: Star Trek has never filmed certain subject material because it was filmed at a time when showing a gay character or showing certain kinds of characters was frowned on. What
    I’m so looking forward to is to see you guys be so progressive and
    all-inclusive. Are you looking at it that way?

    FULLER: Absolutely. I think the progressive audience that loves Star Trek will be happy that we’re continuing that tradition.

    • SpaceCadet

      Remind me what the “stir” is about again? Every previous Star Trek series has been progressive as well. What exactly is the new precedent here?

      • M33

        I think it was his term “the progressive audience”, as if there was a separate audience that watched and enjoyed Star Trek.

        The point I think that may provide relief to many of these comment is when he stated “it’s fascinating to look at
        all of these roles through a colorblind prism and a gender-blind prism”, which is what a lot of upset commenters seem to be actually wanting.

        • Fctiger

          Well good info. Although I don’t believe thats completely true since we have known for literally months now that the Lt. Commander was going to be a woman and one of color. Not necessarily black but he did state she would be a minority.

          Buuuut, yeah I imagine probably most of them are just based on the actors they meet. I dont believe all of them but sure some. I wrote a long thing on this below and I’m guessing they had SOME idea of what the characters were but maybe not committed to it either. If they find an actor thy love they would make it work.

          But yes thanks you for disproving the notion its some kind of agenda and it sounds like they are open to finding the best fit of actors period.

        • Michael

          Watch out Fuller, excluding half the population and insulting then by omission comes back to bite you in the ass. See: Hillary Clinton

          • SpaceCadet

            Why the need to inject American politics into this discussion? You’ve mentioned in your other comments about “unhinged liberals” but what does that have to do with this new Star Trek series? Are you saying that Bryan Fuller has some PC liberal agenda? If so, how upsetting for you since his influence is all over the show.

          • Michael

            Because I am American, and this show is America? Seems obvious.

          • SpaceCadet

            I’m an American too. What’s your point? What does American politics have do with it? The Walking Dead is an American show too. So American politics somehow has something to do with that show too? Again, what it is the connection? Seems like you needed to raise the topic out of the blue when it wasn’t warranted.

          • Michael

            American politics has been involved with Star Trek from the very beginning. Many episodes are commentary on politics. I have no doubt that the creators of this show are going to be using it to push their agenda, instead of making commentary on it like Roddenberry did. Sad.

          • SpaceCadet

            That’s not what’s going on here and stop pretending like it is. You’re injecting your own personal politics into this forum by saying “Hillary” this and “unhinged liberal” this out of nowhere, revealing your own personal political biases. You’re really the only one here that seems to being doing this. You’re also assuming this show will have a political agenda long before it’s even aired! Really? Cut it out.

          • Michael

            Wow, quite rude. I know what’s going on here and I carefully ponder everything I write before I write it. I am not “pretending” anything. I have no political “biases”. I happened to prefer President-elect Donald Trump over Hillary in this past election.

            I know for a fact this show has a HUGE political element. Just like Undiscovered Country. Why do you think they brought in the guy who did ST VI?

            I am fortunate enough to be privy to some details of the show thanks to a friend. I am sharing the info to excite fans as my fellow fans don’t seem to be excited about the show as they should be.

          • Fctiger

            If this is your way to ‘excite’ fans by moaning they don’t just have a bunch of white people on it you’re kind of doing a poor job at it. And of course that’s your right but you also just said Star Trek has always been political but now you’re upset the show will be political?

            Yeah its part of the show. STID was clearly a political film.I know people were split on that film but most went in knowing it was going to be based on around the issues of 911.

            What made DS9 so great that the show was political from day 1 like you seem to be saying Discovery will be. It was a very message based show but I wouldn’t say the message was either liberal or conservative they threw a lot out there on many subjects, some I agreed with and others I didn’t. But the point is it got me thinking about them just the same and why I loved that show. It was the only show that took religion head on and made it part of the story line. And it actually ended up being pro-religious in the end although many see Trek as anti-religious. I really loved that aspect about it and I’m an atheist.

            There is nothing wrong for shows to make you think about these things. Again just like its multiculturalism everyone oddly trying to forget Star Trek was about issues of the day. No not every episode and they drowned it in enough action to not hit you over the head with it. But every show of this franchise has had its share of political, cultural and philosophical views.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            and for you, see: Vladimir Putin

            Lol

            PS: Seriously folks, let’s please keep the recent election out of this discussion.

          • Michael

            I trust Putin far more than I do the Democrats at this point based on their behavior after the election.

          • SpaceCadet

            Okay, thanks for sharing that you put more trust in a genocidal maniac that’s adversarial to your own country and that even Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals alike agree is our enemy and can’t be trusted. Next.

          • Michael

            He can be trusted. Peace is always preferable to war. We need to give him every chance.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Lay off the crack pipe. He’s former KGB, and his has jailed and orchestrated assassinations of all of his critics, including even some in freight countries.

            You are incredibly naive.

          • Michael

            I know what he is. Still far more American than Hillary is.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Yea, like DUH

          • Fctiger

            I doubt you would last living a month in Russia.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        There is no issue with it. Star Trek has ALWAYS been a progressive show…FACT!

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      And the problem with this is????

  • Michael

    Where are the muslims??? Where are the transgendered? Where are the gender fluids, then absent sexes, and the non-conforming body type!! This show is not diverse enough!!! The LGBTQVIJSIAODJBEJ community DEMAND inclusion – or else!! *foams at the mouth*

    • Fctiger

      Are you drunk? You don’t usually sound this unhinged. At least based on the past posts I seen of yours.

    • madmadia85

      there is some grotesque irony in someone complaining that TREK is TOO diverse and inclusive…

    • SpaceCadet

      Why are you so super sensitive to the fact that people from different backgrounds will be represented on this show? Why does it make you feel so threatened or offended? Have you never seen Star Trek before? It has always had diversity and been progressive. This is not something that’s new. No one is foaming at the mouth demanding that every single minority group be represented on the show but yeah, attempts should be made that everyone shouldn’t look alike or otherwise that defeats the progressive message of the show.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      You really need to move on from your regular bitchfests here about diversity. Grow up!

      IDIC, brother.

  • M33

    With all the talk about “progressivism” in Star Trek, I found this article to be an interesting fairly objective read:

    http://www.politicususa.com/2013/06/15/liberals-progressives-difference-matters.html

    • Eric Cheung

      PoliticusUSA got pinged on my fake news app.

      But, even before that, the chart at the top of it is downright bizarre.

      I’ve found the spectrum on Political Compass to be particularly useful, as it has a left-right spectrum and an authoritarian/libertarian spectrum.

      https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

      • M33

        Thanks for that.

      • M33

        Thanks for that.
        I ignored the chart and was looking at content of the essay only.
        The chart didn’t make much sense.

      • Michael

        Who decides what is considered “fake news”?? Lol

  • The Science Fiction Oracle

    This is f’in awesome. She was outstanding on The Walking Dead.

  • Xandercom

    They just don’t get it.
    More budget = less story. This really is silly money. I assume it’s going to be 15% story, 15% acting, and 70% VFX.
    Does a new ship and 10 years earlier make this not a reboot? Oh, I mean a prequel? Come on, this is a slow motion car crash with no general appeal without destroying what has come before. The reboot movies have tried it, epic cerebral fail.

    This whole outfit is a US online network cashing in on rights it holds.

    You’ll come to regret the day this had a Star Trek brand slapped on it.

    Let’s face it, a bunch of greedy bastards have cashed in on the Trek brand without any understanding of the people they think are lined up to watch it.

    • Michael

      You sound angry. You never have anything positive to say. What is the source of the pain you have?

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Lol, we haven’t even seen a trailer yet, dude.

      • Xandercom

        As a devoted fan since the mid 80’s, a career made from trek, and having watched the car crash *JJ throw more money at it* reboots, I’m afraid I simply have no interest in Klingons and/or prequels.

        Flogging a dead horse CBS, you’ve already lost.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          One might have said the same thing 7 months before the premiere of the Battlestar Galactica reboot.

          A fine wine is still a fine wine, even though you have drunken wine for many years. If it’s a great show, with good writing, awesome characters, and a cool serialized over-arching story, not many fans are going to be bitching about it’s use of Klingons or what year in the fake future history it takes place.

          • Xandercom

            I don’t want to drink the same old wine, I never liked old wine in the first place.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            You will be one of the “not many fans” then I guess.

          • Xandercom

            I have no interest in another prequel. I have no interest in Klingon stories. It’s not why I watch the show.

          • Fctiger

            And yet why do I have a feeling after the pilot airs you will be the first one complaining about it? You could actually, you know, wait and see. You will be watching the pilot like everyone but you have already determined its the worst thing ever. It is what is is, if you don’t want to even give it a chance its your right but the constant whining over something we haven’t even seen yet is over the top.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Imagine that, waiting to see the pilot before dismissing the entire new series.

            That would be like…REASONABLE

        • Snap

          That’s certainly fair enough, with the various Trek series there are bound to be series which aren’t peoples’ cup of tea. I’ve also been a Trek fan since the early-to-mid 80’s and I’m looking forward to Discovery with cautious optimism.

          If anything, Discovery’s success should open the possibility for future Trek entries which are all over the untold eras, including post-Nemesis. I think a failure would only put Trek back into an indefinite hiatus and relegate it to the type of movies you’ve indicated you’re not all that fond of.

    • Fctiger

      Xandercom you known for literally MONTHS now what the premise of the show is. You didn’t just find out last week. You were the only one who kept saying the premise would change when there was zero evidence of that. You were told over and over again this is what the show would be. You were in some bizarre denial over it well it has finally hit you now I guess.

      Look I’ll say it again, a lot of people are not happy about the premise as you are but most of us will give it a chance because at the end of the day it can still be a very good show. So just hope for the best instead of these childish rants over it.

      Again you can certainly not like the idea and be skeptical but you are coming off whiny over it for a show that hasn’t even shot a frame of footage yet.

      I mean you’re 34 years old, start acting like it.

      • M33

        Haha. You know his age?
        You guys live next to each other or just longtime posters?

        • Fctiger

          LOL no he said it a few times in other posts before and I just remembered.

  • Pedro Ferreira

    Not sure if CBS are unnecessarily ticking the diversity boxes here but regardless of that the show will have a lot to live up to especially with that awful CG ship and Bryan Fuller’s serialised take on the show.

    • Michael

      Of course they are ticking the diversity boxes. The SJW’s will get all over them if they don’t. I expect the white male in the show to be a bumbling fool/joke role.

      • Pedro Ferreira

        I agree.

  • Varun

    This entire conversation thread makes me incredibly sad. A talented young actress has been hired, and that’s exciting. Maybe I’m just simple minded? Or maybe I judge people based upon their skill and merit, which is the world Star Trek advocates for on a deeply poignant level.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Are you new to the internet?