After months of third-party reporting – as well as some social media photography from March – CBS has finally, officially announced the casting of Sonequa Martin-Green as the lead in Star Trek: Discovery, taking on the central role of First Officer Michael Burnham, per StarTrek.com today (and not the previously-rumored “Lt. Commander Rainsford,” as some other outlets have previously reported).

The long-delayed “reveal” of Martin-Green’s involvement coincides with her departure from AMC’s The Walking Dead, where – spoilers! – her character Sasha met her fate in this past Sunday’s season finale episode.

We’re looking forward to learning more about the character as production continues! 

  • Welcome to the Trekverse, Sonequa!

  • The Science Fiction Oracle

    Perhaps the first transgender human character in Star Trek history?

    • pittrek

      I always sad Star Trek needs more transgenders. Also what about representatives of all the other 5 million made up genders, isn’t this show sexist for including people of only 2 genders? And what about the gender fluid people? This show really seems more sexist the more I think about it

      • M33

        LOL

        I can’t tell if you are serious or being sarcastic, but that is pretty funny either way.

        • pittrek

          Of course it was sarcasm 🙂

          • M33

            Very funny!

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        We need to add a character that represents the “grumpy white dude ultra-conservative” as well. That character type has always been under-represented on Trek crew casting.

        Someone who constantly bitches and moans about others, wants everyone to live like he/she does, believes any random email they receive and thinks all websites are accurate, complains about everyone else’s problem solving ideas, but never offers any real and workable solutions when he/she is put on the spot.

        • M33

          LOL
          I know many people both Liberal and Conservative that are like that!

        • Sounds a little bit like McCoy. 🙂

        • Dusty Ayres

          Why the frak would such a person exist in the 23rd century? And what business would they have being in Starfleet with such a xenophobic attitude?

          • M33

            What about Stiles from “Balance of Terror”?

          • Dusty Ayres

            What of him? People like him would be give a military grade R. Lee Ermy-style dressing down and told to shape the fuck up, or ship the fuck out, that’s all.

          • M33

            Which Kirk did.
            I was only responding to your question of if a person who is white ultra-conservative would exist in the 23rd century (which I assumed by the original poster meant someone who hold superficial prejudices).
            Heck, even Kirk and Co. were pretty “conservative” (if we use the term in that way) in the beginning of Star Trek VI.
            “They’re animals!”
            “Let them die…”

            Fortunately, Star Trek is always about moving beyond our superficial belief structures, of all kinds.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Hey grumpy, I was OBVIOUSLY being sarcastic.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhGY4ZQYt58

        • Jack Kedovac

          So, you’re basically looking for the “Dusty Ayres” character on Trek.

          This could be done.

    • Tuskin38

      There are woman IRL named Michael, from TrekCore’s facebook

      “Regarding ‘Michael’ – yes, it is occasionally a woman’s name. (Michael Learned from “The Waltons,” Michael Michele from “ER,” etc.)”

      Plus Bryan Fuller apparently has a habit of giving female characters ‘masculine’ names or nicknames.

      • Cabo 5150

        If I remember correctly, her gender was qualified in the credits under the billing of “Miss Michael Learned”!

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        So what did Michael learn from the Waltons?

        • Cabo 5150

          How to say goodnight to the kids a million times in a million subtle variations!

    • You never know. There could have been transgender characters in Star Trek in the past. For all we know, Scotty could have been born female. I’d have to assume that after a few hundred years, gender reassignment procedures would be so good, there’d be no way of guessing someone’s original sex (and it might not make a difference to people in the future anyway).

    • Tone

      If they were really interested in equal rights and activism, they would have cast a man and cast him as a trans woman.

      • M33

        He does a great Mr. and Mrs. Obama!
        You should see the photo. It is pretty impressive actually.

  • Neoliberal Elitist

    Can’t wait to see her in full Starfleet drag. Although judging from the promo clip I saw, they won’t be true to the era in which the show’s supposedly set.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Love your name and photo!!!

      • Neoliberal Elitist

        Thank you 😉

    • MattR

      Technically we only officially know what the uniforms looked like 5-10 years after Discovery and like 100 years before Discovery. The ones in that promo look like they could have some design lineage with the Enterprise uniforms

      • M33

        We also know what the uniforms looked like approximately 20 years prior to Discovery on the Kelvin, too, which might give more indications.

        Or not.

        • Neoliberal Coastal Elitist

          The Kelvin uniforms looked sleeker than the Nu-Enterprise uniforms despite being 20-25 years earlier. The costume design/art direction on the J.J. films were a mess.

          The cool thing about the 80s-00s Trek shows was that the same people worked on all of them so they were consistent.

          • M33

            I agree. The Kelvin Timeline uniforms seemed jarringly out of place with the redesigned Enterprise.

            I think if the Kelvin Timeline films had been like the first 15 minutes if the first one, that iteration would have been incredible.

          • Neoliberal Coastal Elitist

            Hahaha, I meant the actual U.S.S. Kelvin uniforms from the first 15 mins of the 2009 Star Trek were sleeker than the ones that came later i.e. Nu-Kirk, etc. But yes, you’re right! They finally got the uniforms right in Star Trek Beyond, IMO.

          • M33

            Those Beyond ones were interesting. Reminded me somewhat of Season 3 TNG uniforms, mixed with ENT and TOS.
            An interesting, and different, take, much like Beyond itself.
            When Star Trek takes bold leaps, for better or for worse, it is always interesting.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I would imagine that you must have walked out then when Wrath of Khan premiered, given how they completely roughed out the uniforms that we saw from the earlier Trek time-frame with the ultra-sleek uniforms we saw in TMP. You must have been beside yourself…just furious!!!

          • M33

            ??

            The TOS movies uniforms fit the aesthetic of their environments and the overall production design very well, including TMP.

            I think perhaps you might have read my comment the wrong way.
            The Kelvin-Timeline Enterprise interior design seemed to me to clash with the bright colors of their uniforms, at least to me. No big deal, really.

            Why anyone would even consider walking out of a movie because of costume design sounds silly.
            I’ve only walked out on movies that got way too violent (i.e. Apocalypto).
            Watching graphic violence is not a form of entertainment that I find entertaining.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I was joking! 🙂

          • M33

            Ahhhh!
            Nuance is often lost over the internet!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “The Kelvin uniforms looked sleeker than the Nu-Enterprise uniforms despite being 20-25 years earlier. The costume design/art direction on the J.J. films were a mess.”

            I would imagine that you must have walked out then when Wrath of Khan premiered, given how they completely roughed out the uniforms that we saw from the earlier Trek time-frame with the ultra-sleek uniforms we saw in TMP. You must have been beside yourself…just furious!!!

            “The cool thing about the 80s-00s Trek shows was that the same people worked on all of them so they were consistent.”

            No,it sucked, because by the last two series, Voyager and Enterprise, they were out of ideas, and the shows were lackluster and sometimes downright bad.

          • Jack Kedovac

            Yep. I stopped watching partway through DS9 (and probably missed out on some good episodes, as well as a lot of bad ones). Never even tuned into Starlost, or Star Trek Lost In Space, or Voayger, or whatever it was. The sparkle in my eye was long gone. (Replaced by B5, in fact…)

      • Actually, we know what the uniforms looked like at just about the time of Discovery, because Spock says in “The Menagerie” that the footage of Pike is from “thirteen years ago,” or three years before Discovery.

      • Neoliberal Elitist

        “The Cage” takes place 10 years before Kirk–supposedly the era in which DSC is set–so we know what those uniforms looked like.

        The fan film “Axanar” gets the uniforms right for the time period. Too bad the “real” Trek won’t.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          “so we know what those uniforms looked like.”

          Nope. What we do know is what those uniforms looked like given 1964 TV production values and a shoestring pilot TV budget. LOL

          PS: By Axanar, do you mean that war-mongering fake Trek “Starfleet Battles game brought to life” thing?

    • Dusty Ayres

      Why should they have to?

      • Neoliberal Elitist

        I dunno. Continuity and all that sh*t.

        • M33

          Hey, I thought Braga and Moore made it clear continuity was crippling!
          I mean, who needs continuity when you can tell any story you want to instead?

          (kidding, of course)

          • Neoliberal Elitist

            That’s why ENT didn’t make it to seven seasons like TNG, DS9 & VOY did.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            The only reason tired, boring Voyager made seven seasons was that they brought in that ultra sexy Jeri Ryan in here spandex leotard that left little to the imagination in season 4…that stopped what had been a continual ratings drop over the first 3 seasons.

            Enterprise should have brought in Pamela Anderson for season 3…LOL

          • Neoliberal Coastal Elitist

            T’Pol was supposed to have been the Seven Of Nine equivalent on ENT. That decontamination gel scene from the pilot was hottttt.

          • TUP

            Bad writers hate canon and continuity. Good writers love the challenge.

            Imagine a writer saying “I LOVE Star Trek…but man, I hate all the canon.” The canon is not a second by second report of Trek Universe from 1900-2500. SO much in between what we have seen. Really, the canon stuff is so easy. It actually HELPS the series by providing depth.

            A lot of brand new series struggle until they lay down some history and “rules” and create a sandbox to play in. Star Trek comes with that already.

        • DC Forever

          If continuity means having to use 20-50 year old costumes, alien makeup/masks and ship designs for a FICTIONAL SHOW just so some fans can pretend the future is monolithic, then please count me out.

          • Neoliberal Elitist

            The door’s that way>>>>

          • DC Forever

            Yea, the door to the future…the door away from rigid canon think.

          • Neoliberal Coastal Elitist

            “The door to the future” would be to set the new show beyond the TNG/DS9/VOY era where they could do anything they wanted, not “reimagine” what we already know.

            You should love the J.J. Nu-Treks, they’re as far away from “rigid canon think” as anything.

          • Dusty Ayres

            And that’s why they’re successes that are getting new fans, unlike the previous series so full of minutiae that casual viewers or new one get lost and can’t make heads nor tails of it. What did you expect, for Star Trek to be stuck in a rut as a franchise just to suit you and other older fans like you?

          • Neoliberal Coastal Elitist

            No, I, like many other “older” fans, expect them to stick to the timeline and canon that THEY THEMSELVES ESTABLISH.

            I agree that the not-so-smart, no-internal-logic Nu-Trek movies are tailor-made for younger fans.

          • Dusty Ayres

            Well, that’s why Paramount and CBS can leave old farts like you stuck in the past where you (rightfully and deservedly) belong. No franchise owner should have to be beholden to a past continuity/canon ‘just because’ (DC and Marvel sure aren’t, why should Paramount and CBS be with Star Trek or any other property they both own?) Watch, or don’t watch.

          • Neoliberal Coastal Elitist

            LOL you’re quite the little fu ckface.

            By the way, the success of the current DC and Marvel movies/TV shows is based on the fact that they are the CLOSEST TO THE COMICS THEY’VE EVER BEEN. Which blows your “argument” out of the water.

            Learn to debate and get back to me. Better yet don’t.

            Blocked.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            OMG, the last good Marvel movie was like 3 years ago with GOTG.

            The last few have been just painful to watch.

          • Neoliberal Coastal Elitist

            Civil War and Dr. Strange were both incredible. The Cap flicks are my favorite Marvel movies overall. The Marvel Netflix stuff is shaping up to be so-so overall. Daredevil season one was the best there. Don’t watch Agents of SHIELD. Guess it’s a matter of opinion. No Marvel flick has tanked yet.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Civil War and Dr. Strange were disappointing in my book. Civil War was going to pretty good until the silly forced fit of the new kid Spiderman — then it was just one silly thing after another.

            Dr. Strange was very disappointing. The first half got my hopes up, but then it dissolved into the standard Marvel good-guy vs. bad guy ending with no consequences.

            I actually prefer the DC movies — they are not as slick, and not as popular with the fanboy types, but events and stories have consequences in most of those movies, unlike Marvel.

            The last two Marvel movies I liked were GOTG and Winter Solider — years ago!

          • Jack Kedovac

            Dusty Ayres. What a character. Wants to be hated. Is succeeding quite admirably at his goal.

          • Neoliberal Coastal Elitist

            Mission accomplished.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Voyager is painful to watch. The new movies have issues as well. So saying, “the new movies aren’t good, so let’s pick up where Voyager left off” I don’t find the slightest bit compelling.

            Your comparison doesn’t work, because two wrongs don’t make a right.

          • Neoliberal Coastal Elitist

            That kinda wasn’t my argument at all, but whatever.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Exactly. Voyager showed how that continuation of canon had run out of gas.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Actually, the worst idea would be to do a new show in future after TNG/DS9/VOY, as the show would have to be beholden to the unwieldy amount of canon that had been built up.

          • Neoliberal Coastal Elitist

            Not really. They could do whatever they wanted.

  • M33

    Michael…
    Best idea since the male mini skirts from TNG…

    I’m certainly all about diversity but this is getting kind of silly.
    Boldly going where no political correctness has gone before?

    And keep in mind folks, I’m actually looking forward to this series…

    • Ace Stephens

      As the piece indicates, it’s the name of some women. If it was another “uncommon but occasional” name, would you care?

      “Oh no! A woman named James or a man named Aubrey!”

      Who cares? It’s not political correctness (at least not without a notable amount more information behind “why”) – it’s statistical that an occasional person’s name might be more common for another gender or the like. “That name doesn’t quite fit my generalized perception” occurs all the time if you deal with “new” people regularly and have generalized notions about names.

      As of late, many people seem so caught up on latching onto things to claim to be pleased or offended by that they ignore reality.

      Me, I don’t care about the skirts either.

      Of course, if they start making a big deal during interviews/marketing, talking up how her name’s uncommon for her gender in order to make a (possibly “political”) point somehow…then I’ll be annoyed.

      As it is, that’s just who she is. Who cares? …Some, I guess. But I don’t fully comprehend why.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        Seems like you’re the one making a big deal about it here with your treatise? Perhaps just take your own advise and not get so hung up on what others think?

      • M33

        I don’t care ultimately what the name is. I will enjoy the character regardless, as I have with most all Trek characters.
        What it feels like is a forced matter done in order to make a “point”, especially a political one, which seemingly has been part of the show from inception.
        I could be wrong, but given the times we live in where activism on both sides seems more and more prominent, it makes me curious as to the reasoning.
        I am sure she will do a great job, nonetheless. And in the end, truly, none of it really matters.
        It is entertainment.

        • Ace Stephens

          I can see this, in the current atmosphere, warranting “suspicion” – although obviously the show has a history of trying to make a point (but, when done well, generally through ignoring direct reference to the point they’re making). Here, I just don’t know and don’t really see the need for investment in this regard.

          Add an “a” and it’s suddenly a woman’s name. What if it was just an “odd” spelling of a “normal” name? Again, I sort of shrug.

          Unless every other interview is “Some people spell things differently!” (or the show’s content itself makes a point of it that it stresses too hard – as I suppose some reasonably saw the skirts) proselytizing. Then I’ll be rolling my eyes and annoyed.

          To me, it’s like there being a gay character. Okay? Great? Just treat him as anyone would be treated and I’m absolutely fine with it (and wouldn’t mind any similar inclusion of such elements surrounding sexuality or similar). Even if that means the character winds up dying eventually – I have no sensitivity toward the potential outrage at what some might view as a “Bury your gays!”-trope if it’s done well and true to the world. It’s all good there – I’ll treat it just like the characters who aren’t gay or I don’t know the sexuality of or whatever. But start emphasizing – beyond just “This is the character…” – sexuality/”the message”/etc. regarding him? …To me, that defeats the point, defies the show’s own likely intentions (of true inclusion – as it would just “other” the character), etc.

          But I can tolerate “A woman has a man’s name!” It happens (or “would happen” – as how common names are in what ways changes over time and all this, too) in reality, makes enough sense in that regard, doesn’t defy the show’s premise, etc. Even if they meant it as a sort of “Some women are named this and should be included more!”-thing. Fine. Just save talking about how important that message is – outside of “Odd Names Monthly” or whatever – for the convention circuit five-to-ten years down the line.

          Don’t make treating people like people into a marketing gimmick. That’s shallow and dehumanizing.

          • M33

            LOL
            I agree with you totally.
            The old “thou dost prostest too much” perhaps can foil the genuine effort to treat everyone as a person.
            Which is why I love Star Trek. Everyone is simply just a person, judged by the merit of their character and actions. Everything else is basically superficial.
            And the “bury your gays” thing is very funny.
            There is an excellent documentary about Hollywood’s history of doing just that and more called “The Celluloid Closet”. Pretty interesting.
            As always, I find our conversations out of the usual box, which is what I like.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            When a character I like in a TV show or movie dies, it’s way down on my list in terms of impact regarding what their sexual preference is.

          • M33

            The worse forced character bar none has to be the captain leader in Godzilla Final Wars.
            Terrible movie.
            And a very bad actor.

          • Dusty Ayres

            There were NO WASP characters in Kubo and the 2 Strings-the whole thing was set in Japan with Japanese people, period.

            The Last Samurai was bogus-there was no white dude helping out the Meiji monarchy that then defects to the Meiji Emperor’s enemies due to seeing how honorable they are and then fighting alongside them. In fact, said white man would have been more than likely to help Emperor Meiji modernize Japan and unify it due to how much carnage the Shogunates and the previous warring periods had inflicted upon Japan (check out this speech made by Toshiro Mifune’s character in Seven Samurai for what I mean):

            What do you think of farmers? You think they’re saints? Hah! They’re foxy beasts! They say, “We’ve got no rice, we’ve no wheat. We’ve got nothing!” But they have! They have everything! Dig under the floors! Or search the barns! You’ll find plenty! Beans, salt, rice, sake! Look in the valleys, they’ve got hidden warehouses! They pose as saints but are full of lies! If they smell a battle, they hunt the defeated! They’re nothing but stingy, greedy, blubbering, foxy, and mean! God damn it all! But then . . . who made them such beasts? You did! You samurai did it! You burn their villages! Destroy their farms! Steal their food! Force them to labor! Take their women! And kill them if they resist! So what should farmers do? Damn… damn… damn… (He sinks to his knees, sobbing)

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            LOL — the primary 5 cast members for Kudo and the 2 Strings were all white, and were either Americans or from the UK. Fact!

            “said white man would have been more than likely to help Emperor Meiji modernize Japan”

            You mean like the other hundreds of white men who were there doing just that? He was one person out of hundreds. Congrats for just proving the opposite of the point you were trying to make. 😉

          • Dusty Ayres

            I don’t care if you’ve learned everything there is to know about Japan, the movie is still bogus, and is arguing for feudalism to continue simply because some of the populace wants it to be that way and they find an (eventually) sympathetic white man to help them. I used to like it myself, but now I realize that The Last Samurai is shit, especially for having to cast a big-name American actor in it just to get people to see it. Kubo & The Two Strings may not have had Asians voicing the main characters, but it’s a better movie all the same than The Last Samurai just for the artistry alone of using puppets rather than all CGI and for how good the story is, and for not telling the story through the eyes of a Caucasian person.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I’d argue, that given the experience of Japan after the Meij Restoration through 1945 that both Japan and world would have been a hell of a lot better off if the feudal Edo period had simply continued for another century (e.g. like it did in China).

            The Shogunates were brutal, yes, but they “got nothing” on Imperial Japan of the 20th Century. And throughout their history, there were “good Samurai” who practiced Bushido, and “bad Samurai” who were out for themselves..JUST LIKE IN FEUDAL EUROPEAN HISTORY FROM THE LATE MIDDLE AGES THROUGH THE 19TH CENTURY.

            Kubo and the 2 Strings was a whitewashed American-designed and executed movie hiding its whitewashing under the guise of animated native characters. The Last Samurai, but contract, had primarily Japanese actors, and was actually filmed in Japan. It was a hell of a lot more authentic that that white-washed cartoon.

          • Dusty Ayres

            Even if that means the character winds up dying eventually – I have no sensitivity toward the potential outrage at what some might view as a “Bury your gays!”-trope if it’s done well and true to the world.

            You might not have a problem with ‘Bury your gays’, but many people do-this happened after a lesbian couple on The 100 had one of the couple die bereaving the other. Fans of the show were so angry that they (rightfully, IMHO) gave the production staff a piece of their minds:

            What TV Can Learn From ‘The 100’ Mess

            This kind of thing has to stop, and people are tired of it.

          • Ace Stephens

            What is “this kind of thing,” in your view?

            It was either poorly written, in which case, that is the concern…or it wasn’t, in which case the concern is social rather than intrinsic to the (quality of the) story told in the work. In which case, I don’t care.

            Others can if they want but getting caught up on one’s own ideas in these manners outside of the work (“Why isn’t this character more like me?” and “This is often done poorly in the world surrounding this work therefore it’s also bad even if it’s done well here.”-type stuff I see from many as of late…which seems to often be “guilt or innocence by association with my concerns” stuff) is rather misguided in my view.

            If the character “should” die, he should die. His sexuality is irrelevant to that regarding the needs of drama. To treat him any differently due to it would be demeaning.

          • Dusty Ayres

            To GLBT people tired of GLBT characters dying in fiction (and persecuted in reality), this is not an irrelevancy, this is them wanting to be seen and depicted in fiction as being a part of society. Straight couples don’t get split up because of death on most TV shows, why should GLBT ones?

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArhjsKCC4Ok

          • Ace Stephens

            …I am well-aware of this subject (as you should have noted since most wouldn’t refer to the trope at all since they’re unaware of it despite its prevalence). I just do not have sensitivity toward it regarding joining in with self-involved individuals who refuse to put the needs of the narrative before their own wants as fans (or whatever else).

            If you wish to promote the idea that gay people should be treated differently, fine. I wish to promote the idea that they should be treated the same way as anyone should be.

            So, as I indicated, if his character dies and it’s done well and true to the world…I have no sensitivity in those regards. Nor empathy (in this respect) for those individuals who miscontextualize it due to self-involvement and concerns otherwise.

            Just as I didn’t when Fuller was criticized for (on Hannibal) killing off a prominent Asian woman character despite the fact that he changed the character from a male in the source material, cast that actress even though the character name was Jewish (and the woman wasn’t indicated as having changed her name), cast the actress having informed her of her fate, kept her on for an extra half-season because he loved working with her, knew it was essential to the story, etc. Essentially, people were complaining that Fuller engaged in inclusive casting and refused to treat anyone differently on the basis of race or gender yet those complaining claimed to be “progressive.” In my view, they’re not. They’re self-involved and they don’t care about treating people equally.

            While I will still treat them with humanity, I have a very difficult time empathizing with that.

          • Dusty Ayres

            A quoted comment from somebody at the original article:

            Here’s the thing: one straight character dying will NEVER have the same impact as one lesbian dying. Why? There are thousands of those exact same straight characters out there. Lesbians, however? Please refer to “Autostraddle’s Ultimate Infographic Guide to Dead Lesbian Characters on TV”. (https://www.autostraddle.com/autostraddles-ultimate-infographic-guide-to-dead-lesbian-tv-characters-332920/)

            A few numbers from that infographic:

            *Straight people are represented in TV with a whooping 18,000+ characters. The number is so big they didn’t even bother counting the exact amount and just added a plus.
            Lesbian AND bisexual characters? Well, there WAS a total of 383 of them.

            *Of those 383 characters, 95 were killed. That is 25% of them. That would be equal to 4’500+ of the straight characters dying.

            The thing is: everyone expects the LGBT characters to die. It is in no way a plot twist. It has never been a clever story change. It has never kept people interested, it only serves to traumatize them.

            If you actually tolerated LGBT people you would educate yourself on the topic. That is so very clearly not the case here so your opinion on this is irrelevant.

            Are you really telling me you are able to see things from my perspective? I doubt it.

            But I have been forced to see things from YOUR perspective my whole life. You think having 30 happy endings for LGBT people throughout ALL of TV history is CODDLING??

            http://variety.com/2016/tv/opinion/the-100-lexa-jason-rothenberg-1201729110/#comment-list-wrapper

          • Ace Stephens

            Yeah, I’ve seen similar figures already. As I said, I am fairly aware regarding this topic. I simply do not see inequality as equality.

            So, if you want a general overview of my stance on these things which are associated with but functionally irrelevant to what I said…then here goes:

            In these cases (where so many LGBT characters have died) one must consider that the real issue regarding “why that is” is the constant straight white male leads (sometimes with one variable changed) in so many works. And so then when the “diversity quotient” is upped and they add side characters in order to be more inclusive – particularly in genre works (scifi, horror, etc.) – these additional characters are more likely to die. Of course, as-is-obvious, side characters aren’t as indispensable to the show/franchise and so they are more likely to die as a matter of course. Combine this with actors leaving, scheduling/contract disputes, the nature of narrative, etc. and…

            The only thing one can truly account for regarding discerning the quality of the individual work remains the individual work.

            And so what you wind up with in some cases are misguided, self-involved people claiming to be progressive who are actually complaining because of inclusion of minorities. I don’t empathize with that.

            (And as for the personal assertions in that comment which I’m aware were not directed at me expressly, nobody knows my gender or sexuality or race or anything else…although people online seem to be quite comfortable inferring it because of my views, which I think says a lot about how narrow their understanding/perception is regarding the varying outlooks/people in the world. And I never said anything about “coddling” or the like.)

            So, if you wish to keep discussing this subject with me, you should really start replying to what I’m saying rather than whatever’s going on in your head.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Good points. Maybe it’s just me, but the whole media craze with the gay character things is depressing. Are we in the 90’s still?

            Then, again, having an evil, lying, bigoted moron as president seems to force society into these disparate camps again, pulling back the multicultural progress that we have seen over the past decade. I just thank god that I live in the great state of California, where we have largely rejected this moron.

          • Ace Stephens

            The media will latch onto anything that gets attention, I guess.

            I don’t know what’s going on exactly in these regards (as far as the culture seeming obsessed with the idea of this or that “type” being included) except that some people these days seem to think it helps treat people equally to treat them differently. And others assume every bit of inclusion then must be that. And more and more polarization/assumptions occur.

            I’ve got someone on my case here about that (I think treating people equally means…just treating them equally) and their view makes no sense to me. “But there are problems already!” Yeah – treat people equally and it goes away. Try to fix it by “overcorrecting” and I find that it tends to persists but in various permutations. Sometimes worse, sometimes better. Often a bit worse or at least a bit more confusing, even if nothing’s changed regarding the overall “good” of things.

            But when someone seems to be agreeing with those I would consider “the bad guys” (overt bigots or those similarly-minded) as far as the whole “treat people differently due to ________” elements while just disagreeing on the specifics of what that means – whether a given “type” should be treated well or poorly…I don’t find one is actually disagreeing that much. Because they still agree that people shouldn’t treat each other equally on the basis of those things.

            And, to me, that’s baffling.

            Then again, I have people try to lump me into various political parties/stances/etc. a lot these days whenever I take issue with what I find to be some awkward reasoning on their part (which, of course, I’m not wholly innocent of either)…and, because they assume I’m taking issue with their view/conclusion outright (and sometimes I am) rather than its potential lack of consistency in my perception, they seem to “get me wrong” an awful lot. I think because some people are freaking out due to all the political…stupidity of the world right now. So they just like to assume anyone questioning their stance in some form is inherently of an opposing political perspective “overall” or something.

            It’s absurd. People are people. I think if enough people started treating people that way moving forward, it would slowly rub off on a lot more. But, instead, we even have people who say they’re advocating equality who are simultaneously pushing concepts that seem to further stress/allow/”enforce” inequality.

            I just don’t get it.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          The name very well could have been developed in that fashion by Fuller, who he would admit himself, wanted to get beyond current stereotypes, etc.

          It don’t really care one way or the other. As long as we don’t get something as utterly boring at TNG Season 1, I will be happy.

          • M33

            Season One for TNG was pretty rough.
            Nothing in Enterprise was as bad…
            Well… except the decon rubdown scenes… and the theme song…

            The only way I can see them totally shipwreck this series is if they do to it what Stargate Universe did to the Stargate franchise.
            They took a fun, interesting franchise and turned it into utter pop-drama schlock (complete with horrible WB-style “contemporary” music).

          • Dusty Ayres

            There was nothing wrong with the decon gel rubdown at all-it sounded like a sensible way to make sure that viruses weren’t carried onto the ship by accident, and in keeping with the low-tech ambiance of the show.

          • M33

            I will agree to disagree on that. A 20th century automatic sprayer machine would have worked just as fine if not better, in my opinion.

            I mean, they left their underwear on for God’s sake!
            Bacteria and virii are, what, prudish, and won’t migrate there?
            Wholly absurd in my opinion.
            It was solely conceived as a gimmick to get their clothes off.
            BORING.

            Just my $0.02.

          • Ace Stephens

            It was solely conceived as a gimmick to get their clothes off.

            And, as you just pointed out, couldn’t even do that.

          • M33

            LOL
            True that!

            Ace, do you live in the US?
            For some reason, I always imagine you with an accent.
            Forgive me if I am wrong!
            I am an out of the box thinker, neither left or right, and I never fit well into people’s categories either.

          • Ace Stephens

            I have a “standard” American accent.

            I get so confused sometimes because my brain seems set to try to match ideas up with themselves and so I seem like a constant hypocrisy-detector or nitpicker but I genuinely just want to be able to make sense of things (including how others see things). I might agree or disagree but either one is bad when I don’t fully grasp what someone’s trying to say or feel it’s a mess of contradicting elements. Of course, in some cases where what somebody said doesn’t hold up to me, this just means I misunderstood or was missing out on the nuance or something like that – and hopefully I understand eventually.

            But, usually, I find it means I’m about to have a needless argument with someone when all I wanted to do was figure out what they were trying to say but I probably chose my words poorly and wound up seeming insulting or confrontational.

            So, yeah…”picking fights” over nothing is pretty (US) American.

            Then again, doing it unintentionally while trying to be understanding (and winding up looking like an ass for it) is rather British…

          • M33

            Haha!
            I understand that.
            I realize after I sent that message, I showed my own American “default” thinking by assuming an accent meant anything other than American English…
            The hard thing is I think most Americans are naturally hardwired for confrontation. Our society has been polarized since the beginning into two factions, which our relgio-cultural upbringings naturally default into a blanket good vs. evil mindset.
            Like DS9, most everything in reality are grey areas, and us in the middle often get sidelined into one or the other camp, it seems.

          • Dusty Ayres

            Just YOUR $0.02, and not a particular point that needed to be brought up, considering the number of times Kirk had his shirt off (and the one time that Spock had his off and Sulu had his off, we saw women on TOS in revealing wear, or the fact that ‘The Cage’/’The Menagerie’ was all about a bunch of telepathic aliens getting a human male (Pike) to mate with a human female (Vina) by making her attractive to him so that the two of them can get it on and have a shitload of babies to repopulate the alien’s race.

            Wake up and smell the coffee; Star Trek’s journey began with sex in ‘The Cage’ and can continue to have sex in it on Enterprise, and if you can stand what went on in ‘The Cage’ and on TOS generally, you can stand to see Archer & Co. be in their skivvies on Enterprise-stop being such a prude and grow the frak up.

          • M33

            Again, we can agree to disagree.

            TOS was fairly tasteful, generally fitting to the story. Veena gyrating in green fit the story.
            ENT rubdowns were pure marketing add-in.

            Nothing wrong with sex. Sex is great, but gratuity for gratuity can just be silly.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Relax, cupcake

      • M33

        Totally relaxed. No worries.

    • GIBBS v2

      Those mini skirts… what were they thinking. I’m as imaginative and opened minded about the future as they come but that idea was crazy bad! Lol!

      • M33

        Maybe they were inspired by…
        the Scottish…?
        (shrug)

        • GIBBS v2

          Emphasis on “mini” (shrugs harder).

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        You mean, what were they thinking with!

    • I don’t get how the name Michael is some sort of political statement or politically correct. What’s your basis for that assertion? It’s just a name. Been used before, will be used again.

      • M33

        First, it is a feeling, informed by the general intentions inferred by the many interviews had by those behind the scenes crafting this series.
        I could be wrong, but I doubt that this name was selected by its aesthetics alone.
        I think it makes sense that they chose a common male name for their lead female character which would automatically be politically charged on both sides of the spectrum, guarateed to garner attention and create buzz.
        Just take a look at the various comments elsewhere, on twitter, and even on this board other than my own:
        transgender; gender reassignment; masculine vs feminine names; etc.

        In a time where transgender rights and choosing gender identity is in the fore of public discussion, it is very very easy to see a move here to further attempt to blur the line by choosing a name that is scantly ever used for women, and Star Trek is a perfect vehicle to tackle off-handedly contemporary matters.
        As Shakespeare said, the name’s the thing, and creators of story very often have strong reasons or agendas why they use the names they do.
        But, hey, I could be wrong here.
        We can only wait and see.
        As Spock said, IDIC.
        and, “Fascinating.”

  • Your Worst Nightmare

    I’m so shocked this is being announced after what apparently happened on TWD last night. /sarcasm

  • pittrek

    I never heard about a woman named “Michael”. Women use different versions, e.g. Michelle, Michele, Michaela, Mechelle, Micheline, or Michaelle, but I personally never heard about a female named Michael. Very strange business decision.

    • SpaceCadet
    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Yea, it would be like doing a major TV series with naming the lead character doctor after a “house.” It would confuse people by wrongly twisting the generally accepted meaning of a very popular noun — a bad business move!

      • M33

        I thought House was the character’s last name, not his first.
        I don’t know that show very well, so I could be wrong.

        Funny though, my wife knew a woman who named her child Helicopter because she liked how it sounded (not knowing what it meant because they were in the Philippines).
        I also had a friend whose father made jewelry, and there was a lady who wanted a bracelet made for her new born son named Shithead (pronounced Shi-thead).

        No joke.
        So, hey, could be worse.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          Good post — funny!

          Yea, House was his last name, but my point still applies. 🙂

          Best example of this all time though has to be the fictional Major Major Major from the novel “Catch 22”

          • M33

            Haha!
            Good stuff.
            Love name gags.
            Mel Brooks was great at them, too!

    • TUP

      The fact is “Michael” for a woman is unusual. Its not unheard of but it is unusual. There could be an in-universe reason. Or someone on the writing team loved the name, who knows. Maybe her father was named Michael and she was named after him.

      I find it a bit odd that they’d sort of take the stance of their series lead being a black female, which is obviously a good thing, and then give her a generally male name. But it makes no difference…as long as the show is good.

      But to say its not unusual would be dishonest. We’re all talking about it. if the male Captain was named Mary we’d say hmmmm, unusual.

  • Fiery Little One

    Interesting.

  • Tone

    Why is this news? We all knew this would happen after she was wrote out of the living dead series…

    But Michael… right-on CBS. 🤢

    • Because until today CBS hasn’t announced it, nor had the character’s name been revealed.

  • bytes

    First Officer? Might as well make the Captain the main character of the show then. In “Lower Decks”, Commander Riker was not a character portrayed as being among the regular crew. He was seen as way above the rest.

    • SpaceCadet

      I think you’re forgetting that this character has been describe as atypical, so not your standard starfleet officer. With the main character being the first officer there’s the possibility she could eventually be promoted to captain and take over the ship or be given command of another ship. I think it’s a brave idea to focus the main perspective from someone who isn’t the captain.

      • TUP

        Im curious about seeing it from the First Officer perspective. In TNG, it was a bit different because they had to take a more extreme view point. And those were rookies. Riker was portrayed as fairly close to Picard and the other senior staff.

        Im curious if they show Michael as running the day to day operations and make the Captain more aloof. Especially if Michael is newly promoted as well. She’d be straddling both roles as “one of the crew” and senior officer.

        Still, didnt Fuller suggest some unusual things about her…like her position came with caveats and there were rumors of the character spanning generations…hmmmm Trill?

  • bytes

    Are there other ways to pronounce the name Michael, to be feminine?

    • Sykes

      Like Ashley, Drew, Cameron, or Elisha? 😉

      • bytes

        lol well I meant pronouncing the same spelling 🙂 Like “Mi Kale” or something i’m not describing well in text 😀

        • Sykes

          No, I get you. I was just busting your chops. 🙂

          I only mentioned those examples because all of them are pronounced the same for both female and male use.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      “me-chall”

    • Yes, but I believe this character’s name will be pronounced the same as the male version.

  • Chris Tyler

    OK great, lets get the show on the road and start airing the shows. I only wish Paramount/CBS would treat TREK like Disney is with Star Wars!!!!!!

    • Making movies and a television show? 😉 Or, are you saying that they should make one movie a year? I don’t think Trek has the same level of general audience interest of Wars. Honestly, I think Trek is best when it doesn’t have to be all things to all people, which the JJ movies have mostly been up until Beyond, which of course didn’t do as well. Maybe I’ve misunderstood you.

  • Vger64

    I can’t believe how many people have their panties in a bind over the name. How lame. Michael is a fine name even for a female. Move on folks.

  • Welcome to the Star Trek family, Sonequa Martin-Green. I hope you’ll be great!

    Now go watch TOS, if you haven’t seen it already. 🙂

    • Harry Kane

      And don’t forget all the other series too, Star Trek is more than just TOS

      • But TOS is the one that’s near the show that she’s making; all the others are a hundred years before or after. THAT’S why I said she should watch TOS.

        • Fctiger

          Actually from the sound of it, this show is going to be so different from TOS I think it wouldn’t really do much good at all. Maybe some of the people who are playing TOS characters like Sarek or Mudd but I have a feeling this is only going to be TOS in terms of canon but not tone.

      • TUP

        Yeah yeah, you want a Wesley series, we get it. Write some fan fiction. Make Wesley gay too. Try it, it might be fun.

        • Harry Kane

          Don’t be silly, Wesley is not GAY. He will always be straight, the quality of coments on TrekCore has gone downhill quite considerably over the last 1-2 years. ~ Sad

  • M33

    Hey, speaking of “Michael”, what ever happened to the “Michael” that used to post on here all the time about all the stuff that he (or she) knew about Discovery?

    Anyone heard from that dude (or dudette)?

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Basically, myself and others kept pointing out over and over again how he failed to predict the new news that started to come out frequently on Discovery starting about 2 months ago. This leads to a rather obvious deduction that he became embarrassed that we exposed him for not really having an inside source, and so he has just decided to move on, or perhaps he is here now still under a new identity?

      The beginning of the “nail in the coffin” for him was when he over-reached and also claimed to have inside news on the next Trek movie, despite the fact that the studio and production/creative team is completely different from Discovery (i.e. there is not a single person on the planet who would have inside info on both productions)

      Incidentally, this is exactly what I predicted would happen to him.

      • Joe E Dangerously

        No, there would be a lot of people who know things about the TV and feature side. I don’t know who this person is but if he/she did indeed work at the studio or on one of the productions or even knew someone it’s entirely possible he or she could have heard some things from both departments. That happens all the time, really. People in the business often run in the same circles and information does get shared. That’s how a lot of minor leaks happen and occasionally a major leak.

        Now on the specifics of this situation it’s probably true they didn’t have information on the features because to my knowledge there’s no definite plan for a feature at the moment. I don’t know for sure, obviously, but the most I’ve heard is there are some story discussions and that’s about it at this point. It’s not even clear the studio wants to make another feature and I would imagine the show’s reception and revenue will help make that decision. Even if there is a new feature in development very few people would know more details than what I just wrote because that’s pretty much common knowledge. I don’t know anyone working on Trek right now so I don’t have any “insider info” or whatever but what I can tell you is that at this stage (before a feature is even in serious discussions) generally the people who do legitimately have information are usually very hesitant to share it because the studios will go after the people who do. And they do have effective ways of doing that. Legal action isn’t the only way either. They can stall or even halt your career so it’s unlikely you’ll get anything legitimate from that side apart from “some early discussions are happening,” which anyone with common sense would guess anyway. That said, though, it’s not impossible. Far from, in fact.

        • DC Forever

          I find your reasoning extremely unlikely. I doubt that there is a such a person that would have inside info on both production teams, which are entirely different staff, based at entirely different studios, each with their own Non Disclosure Agreements for staff to sign.

          It is remotely possible? Sure. But I think it’s extremely unlikely.

          • Vger64

            And Discovery is being filmed in Toronto Canada

    • Gene’s Vision

      Indeed. How haunting it is that the central character for the new series is named after our most entrenched and venerate critic.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        I bet if he was still here, he’d be claiming that his “Michael” name was his prediction for the main character’s name…he’d be giving himself credit for it…that’s how he rolled here with all of his magician’s bag ot tricks and shock & awe trolling…LOL

        • Gene’s Vision

          Ha Ha!!!

  • Xandercom

    Bet she’ll be called Mike or Mikey

    • DC Forever

      What, a non-negative post from you that doesn’t insult someone?

      Hell is cold today. :-))

      • Xandercom

        You think my comment was intended to be a positive endorsement?!

  • CAPTAIN D-MAN

    She was Sasha, now she’s Misha.

  • Dawn

    I’m not.
    I’ve given up all hope and interest in std. And that is exactly what this series is to the framchise. An STD that will kill it

    • Harry Kane

      Me too, its all about having as many Trans or Gay characters as pos, I have no problem with either but, no need to make a big deal about it. Its not going to make the series any good. Nothing beats hot women

      • MichaelMeir-Wright

        Your opinions are disgusting and not befitting of a Star Trek fan.

        Go and crawl under a rock, you bigot.

        • Jeffrey Walker

          Ah yes the old liberal leftist ideal of calling people bigot or racist or sexist or whatever to shut them up. Such tolerance. You know the hate you feel for people on the right ? Well many of us feel that for disgusting nonsense promoted by the left.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            If the shoe fits

          • TUP

            Really, Jeffrey. This clown is attacking the idea of gay characters and exaggerating the fact to apply the idea that “more gay” is bad. He has a problem with gays, obviously. The “being gay is fine but…” gives it away every time.

            Too black. Too female. Too gay. And he’s a Star Trek fan? Pfffft. There is a better chance he’s actually gay and in denial than he’s not a bigot…lol

      • Jeffrey Walker

        I bet this show doesn’t make it past the initial 13 episodes and will be the nail in the coffin of Trek outside of the Kelvin Timeline Movies. They are shoving radical leftist idea after radical leftist idea into this show to show us how much they don’t want us to be fans if we aren’t liberal sheeple. Well guess you got your way CBS this Christian Conservative lifelong Star Trek fan is ready to throw in the towel if this is what you think a show should be.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          I bet your crappy-ass baseball team is out of the running after 13 weeks of this season.

        • iMike

          1. Star Trek has always been a leftist, liberal idea. Star Trek has always played with themes considered to be liberal. Trek’s success is built on pushing boundaries and challenging societal norms.
          2. Star Trek has played around with human sexuality several times. TNG had “The Host” and “The Outcast.” Both episodes explore LGBTQA themes, and there’s commentary on the TNG Blu-Rays that talks about how the writers and cast were reigned in by the studio on how far they could go. DS9’s “Rejoined” takes TNG’s “The Host” a step farther and suggests the Trill are beyond humanity’s current concepts of gender and orientation. I’d also suggest watching “The Emperor’s New Cloak.” ENT had “Unexpected” and “Cogenitor,” both focusing on the presumably strictly heterosexual Charles Tucker. Both episodes challenge the traditional roles of gender in society.
          3. While more commonly a male name, Michael is not gender-specific. Assuming the character will be transgendered just because she is named Michael is stupid. You may want to check your hypocrisy when you start calling others “sheeple.”

      • TUP

        How many trans and gay characters does it have, bigot? How many is too many for you? Are there too many black character too? Too many women? You’re gross.

  • Harry Kane

    Totally lost intrest in Discovery, Its less about Star Trek and more about creating Gay trek for the sake of political correctness. Now there is nothing wrong with being gay or lesbian but… Ramming it down are throats and suggesting this is a selling point is BS. The whole thing looks crap and will suck, WTF redesigning the Klingons….. a ship that is too advanced and looks ugly. They no flippin clue and they will screw it up. Shame that Star Trek is not treated the same way as Star Wars who recognised that you should not kill off the past succcess.

    • MichaelMeir-Wright

      “Now there is nothing wrong with being gay or lesbian but…”

      So there is a problem. That “but” says it all.

      I cannot believe how small minded some Star Trek fans are. It’s disgusting.

      • Jeffrey Walker

        It is disgusting to see Trek turned into a “LOOK AT THE GAY” show. That is not what its meant to be. It does nothing but turn people off.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          Go back to watching your shitty baseball team please.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        Some of Harry’s best friends are gay, I am sure. 😉

    • TUP

      What an awful perspective. One problem is Discovery has really identified the bigots and morons among the Trek fandom. Very sad. I would really have thought this fan group would be a lot more accepting and open. It mostly is…but these people really bring me down.

      Sad.

  • Harry Kane

    Michael is a male name, It is not feminine, I wonder if she is trans hence the male name female body. Look this Trek is just one big pile of s….. Im sorry but it is. No vision, Fuller quits…. Not that he did any good.

  • Harry Kane

    This whole new series should have been Post Nemesis with Riker and the Titan, now older Wesley Crusher and Admiral La Forge e.t.c contining going forward with new stories new threats, the modern ships….

    • TUP

      That idea sounds terrible. TNG is over. Get a new show.

  • Harry Kane

    Thats how Star Trek became current by evolving a century, DSC is going to be the biggest cockup ever. They have no clue, and all the new movies are crap aswell

    • Dusty Ayres

      Nobody said that you had to watch this series, you bigoted idiot.

  • Harry Kane

    Star Wars showed u how to do it.

  • Harry Kane

    Ok so we now, 1 officer will be a gay man, and then we have Michael a female by birth yet with a Male name, I bet she will be Trans. DSC seems to me all about the Sexual orreintation of characters rather than a meaningful addition to the Trek Universe. Berman was right about all of this, they have lowered trek to petty common subjects

    • Dusty Ayres

      Look, the homophobic bigot speaks.

  • Judith Rodriguez

    Michael Learned from The Waltons

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      What did they teach him?

  • Locutus

    I honestly doubt she is playing a trans character. I think it is probably more a statement on gender equality in the 23rd century. They no longer have the gender norms we are burdened by today where people look askance at a woman named Michael or a man named Michelle. If she is trans, it would have been more impactful if the actor was trans too.

    I am shocked by the intolerance that comes to light with even the mere mention of her character’s name. In any event, what do we know? Nothing really. For all we know, she could even be playing an alien male with feminine features named Michael by adoptive human parents. Get. Over. It.

  • M33

    Here’s a weird question:

    If Syria was a planet in the Beta Quadrant and violent attacks were occurring on its people by its own people, do you think the Federation would be right to intervene, even if it were a warp-capable society but not a member of the Federation?
    Would Kirk?
    Picard?
    Sisko?
    Janeway?
    Archer?
    Burnham?
    Does the Prime Directive apply here?
    If so, why does this philosophy not apply to the United States or the UN regarding other nations behaviors?

    • DC Forever

      So are you saying this would be an “imaginary version of Syria,” where everything is happening internally, with no outside fighters coming in, and no one from the outside shipping in arms? Like a closed system?

      If “Imaginary Syria” would be a closed system like you are suggesting, then the Prime Directive would certainly apply.

      • M33

        Great questions!
        Let’s go a little further…

        If the Federation was also trading with a species, only to find out that their traded supplies were being partly used to attack and conquer the Syrian system, would that justify abandoning the Prime Directive and occupying Syria with Federation forces or arming the native Syrians with Federation advanced technology to correct the error, or would this be beyond the scope or the Prime Directive?
        Why?

        (A sort of “Private Little War” scenario, isn’t it? — which never really came to a conclusion either!)

        • DC Forever

          OK, sure.

          Kirk would intervene, Picard would not. Each would be able to make a case for their decisions under the Prime Directive, with differing interpretations.

          Probably not the definitive answer you were hoping for though?

          • M33

            No definites in Star Trek, as we have seen over the years.
            Breaking the law is okay sometimes but on the other hand rule of law is absolute.
            It is… I suppose the human condition?

            It is an interesting thought.
            The Federation can afford to intervene whenever it wishes and bend its own laws, forever altering the course of whatever society it interacts with, but the affected society has no such power on the Federation and its citizens, most of the time.
            The challenges of unintended consequences, perhaps…

  • Joe E Dangerously

    I seriously doubt the character is trans. I know this is hard to understand for people outside the US but the mere existence of trans people is a political issue here. Gay people too, though since the concept of “transgendered” is newer to most people it’s not nearly as accepted. Star Trek is a lot less progressive than it gets credit for if you really look at it objectively so I don’t think they’ll go in that direction. Too many scared executives. They probably put up a fight when an openly gay character was included so I don’t think they’d acknowledge trans people, much less include one as the series lead. I just don’t think that would happen at this point.

  • Michael McLean

    That’s why human beings as a species will cease to exist because of this stupid gender bullshit. U people all dumb asses . Michael is a male name . Get that through your illogical prestoric brains. That’s why the alliens don’t stop here.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Hi Donald!

  • LiveLongNprosper

    I remember a fine actress by the name Michael Learner from the Waltons. If names are such a big deal, here’s something that will blow you away. A British actor plays a leading trek character who has French name and ancestry.