Since the first rumors about the show’s casting and characters began to rise in 2016, some fringe critics of the series have cried foul about the “emphasis” on diversity among the on-screen crew, from gender to race to sexual orientation – and now series lead Sonequa Martin-Green has now made her first public statements on the matter.

Entertainment Weekly is continuing to dole out excerpts from their upcoming June 30 issue, which is advertised to contain new Star Trek: Discovery reporting as we move closer to the show’s launch, and EW has Martin-Green’s thoughts on the show’s diversity efforts – and the critics – in a new interview out today.

Well, I would encourage them to key into the essence and spirit of ‘Star Trek’ that has made it the legacy it is — and that’s looking across the way to the person sitting in front of you and realizing you are the same, that they are not separate from you, and we are all one.

That’s something ‘Star Trek’ has always upheld and I completely believe that is why it’s been a mainstay in society in the hearts of so many people for so many decades. I would encourage them to look past their opinions and social conditioning and key into what we’re doing here — which is telling a story about humanity that will hopefully bring us all together.

Phillipa Georgiou (Michelle Yeoh) and Michael Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green). (CBS)

And it’s hard to understand and appreciate ‘Star Trek’ if you don’t understand and appreciate that. It’s one of the foundational principles of ‘Star Trek’ and I feel if you miss that then you miss the legacy itself.

I’m incredibly proud to be the lead of this show and be at the forefront of an iteration of ‘Star Trek’ that’s from the eyes of a black woman that’s never been done before, though obviously there’s been other forms of diversity that have been innovated by ‘Trek.’

I feel like we’re taking another step forward, which I think all stories should do. We should go boldly where nobody has gone before and stay true to that.

Star Trek: Discovery launches September 24.

  • Jason Knight-Nellis

    Going to TOTALLY mix my Fandoms here. But I feel this is the case. And it’s much needed. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2e8a8511c67052e0a01a6091095403641e15890b1d0be3a984d0f8aaa2d53c93.jpg

    • Tone

      Really not sure what you’re trying to say here…

      Are you saying there are not enough women in Sci-Fi franchises?

      Are you saying we need more badly done CGI female characters?

      Or we need more women with dark hair in Sci-Fi?

      • CCConly

        No option so terse and without nuance as those, I’d imagine.

  • Michael Broadhead

    Yes, just astoundingly disturbing the comments some people have made.

    • TUP

      I agree. Very disappointed at some of the vile sexist, racist and bigoted remarks by so-called Trek fans.

      • ReveurIngenu

        Why is it automatically “racism” and “bigotry” the instant someone has a viewpoint that’s different from yours? I just couldn’t see myself be part of such an intolerant bunch, so quick to insult.

        • TUP

          Ummm when the “different viewpoint” is that there is something inherently negative about casting a visible minority or gay person, then it is racism or bigotry.

          Sorry, but Im proudly intolerant of intolerance.

          Dont get cute about “different perspectives”. If you dont know the difference then you’re probably exactly the type of person we’re talking about.

          • Tone

            Right on… Yawn

        • Tone

          Be careful trying to explain anything to these kind of people. They only exist to take offence at anything. It makes them feel good about themselves, at the expense of hating and oppressing you in return, the very thing they propose to be trying to put a stop to.

          • Cabo 5150

            In the case of some of the more extreme commentary I’ve read, I think it all it boils down to the so called “Paradox of Tolerance”. Should we extend tolerance to those who essentially cry “be tolerant of my intolerance”.

            For me, the philosopher, Karl Popper, sums it up quite neatly:

            “The paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”

            That’s a elegant, logical, and beautiful conclusion IMHO.

          • CCConly

            It sounds like you’re taking a fair share of offence yourself.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Tell me about it!

        • BatesHotel

          So we should be tolerant of intolerance?

        • Travitt Hamilton

          If the difference in opinion is based on ‘I don’t like black wimminz on my teevee…

  • Blimpboy

    In my opinion the crew aren’t diverse enough for the 21st century viewer. This would be cutting edge for the 1970’s, but for today? It does seem to be a safe choice to me having a young female lead. That’s been a strong trend in the last decade already. Just new for Trek as they have tended to be on the sexual object side of entertainment. David Gerrold tried to put a homosexual character in TNG. That was the late 80’s. There have been far more ground broken in casting since then. Have a leading character that’s Muslim. That would be the bold casting choice.

    • Robert Anthony

      Attaching any staunch religious belief to a Trek character would be a misfire in my book. If humanity still believes in “gods” by the time we can travel the universe what a failure of evolution that would be. Zealotry is the gun with which we shoot the feet of progress and unity. (IMO)

      Other than that, I totally agree that the diversity of this cast is hardly a blip on the radar of notability. The more diverse, the merrier.

      • Tone

        Yeah, I have to admit that I got a little uncomfortable (to the point of rolling my eyes every time it was a Bajoran focused episode) with all the Bajoran religious stuff in DS9.

        • Robert Anthony

          I have to admit I may have rolled my eyes a few times at Chakotay too, but his spirituality was something I learned to appreciate more as a means of meditation and respecting all life – especially after the episode “Distant Origin”, (the one with the dinosaur race that evolved on earth and became space-faring before humans came along) when he tried to school the Voth about their “doctrine”.

          The Bajoran spirituality was a bit much quite often, but I tend to think the writers were very artful in the way they revered and established it, while debunking it almost simultaneously – without offending anyone.

          • BatesHotel

            That was the best Chakotay episode. Actually probably the only one.

          • Tone

            Ahh yes, I had a similar reaction to his stories as well. You knew what you were in for when you heard the pan flute music cues all over the place.

            Exactly like what they did on Dr Quinn Medice Woman whenever there was a Native American story. You would have that damn Eagle squawking all over the place whenever one was on screen…

          • Robert Anthony

            When that music played, I would sometimes turn to my ex and say “A Cuchi Moya, we are far from the storylines that interest us”. (Yes, I am actually ashamed, but meant no serious disrespect at the time.) ‘Never did watch a full episode of Dr Quinn.

        • Pedro Ferreira

          There’s nothing wrong with religious beliefs in Star Trek although DS9’s crime here was that most religious people were presented as fanatical and naive which isn’t a proper representation of people who believe in a god.

          • Andy Hamric

            I never understood the majority of Bajorans to be a bunch of religious fanatics, but the extremists are the ones who make waves and stories. I thought Kira was a good counterpoint to extremism, since she was the prime example of “average” Bajoran religious belief.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Oh definitely agree with Kira. It’s funny actually, people will look at a YT video of scenes from Who Watchers the Watchers and say that it’s Star Trek denouncing religion as nonsense although there are many other examples not just in TNG but also in DS9 and Voyager where religion is given a more thoughtful view. Unfortunately you won’t find any atheists bring up those stories in conversation with me.

      • Blimpboy

        I was thinking of religious tolerance in light of scientific knowledge and awareness. This is more and more relevant now as in the 60’s that Trek shows a future where the concerns of today have been addressed and mankind is looking forward to new discoveries. The point is in not making religion a point. Like I Spy did with casting Cosby in 1965. But we have an inclusive future for people who do keep some beliefs as relevant.

        • Robert Anthony

          There was a little-known sci-fi (gem) show a few years ago called “Defying Gravity” that had a christian character, and I quite enjoyed her inclusion in the show because she was confronted by circumstances that gave her pause.

          Previous inclusions of religion in Trek (ie: Worf and Kira) are actually prettty excellent examples of “questioning” faith in deities by simply admitting there is an “unknown” – which I far prefer. I say this because the Klingons for all their observations about Sto’VoKor, “killed their gods” by record of their own doctrine, and Kira faced the notion on a semi-regular basis that the prophets were merely non-linear, non-corporeal aliens that just happened to live in the wormhole nearby. There’s definitely a benefit to including religion and spirituality to that end. But I dunno if I want to see an actively observant human being practicing a theistic religion in Trek. (Too much validation for ideologies that don’t need another medium encouraging them.) As a species, we need help leaving things that divide us – BEHIND us.

    • pittrek

      Not sure if this is supposed to be a terrorist joke, but ehm … what about Siddig El Tahir El Fadil El Siddig Abderrahman Mohammed Ahmed Abdel Karim El Mahdi ?

      • BatesHotel

        Julian is not a Muslim name.

        • pittrek

          But Sid is a muslim AFAIK

          • BatesHotel

            But his character was not Muslim (and from what I’ve seen of Siddig, he doesn’t strike me as particularly religious, especially with a name change to Alexander), clearly not with a name like Julian. By the 24th century of Trek, humans have evolved from these archaic religions so there shouldn’t be any Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. characters. Thank God for that!

          • Ace Stephens

            No. I refuse to. What with it being Trek and all.

            In all seriousness, didn’t he only change his stage name?

          • BatesHotel

            He spoke of his renewing his passport with the name change as Alexander, so if that’s the case then it would be official. The reason he mentioned it is because he related a story of how he was much better treated by immigration with the name Alexander and his hair dyed platinum blond.

          • Ace Stephens

            Oh. I don’t know if I ever heard that but, in terms of my conscious thoughts, I was unaware of this. Was it within the past ten years? I thought it was just a stage name at least during the run of the show.

          • BatesHotel

            It was when DS9 was still on the air, but some time at the end of the run.

    • M33

      Then they should have a Christian character. And a Buddhist, and a Hindu, and a Mormon, and Taoist, and a Bahai, and a Scientologist, and Pagan, and…

      The stereotyping and pigeonholing by political correctness gets to be so tiring…

      What happened to being “people”?

      • Blimpboy

        Trek characters have been aloud to be devout in their beliefs before. Such as Kira and Worf. The TOS episode “Bread and Circuses” is partly about Christianity developing on a different world. So there is precedent. My comment about a Muslim character was meant in the same way that Worf was aloud to wear his traditional Klingon sash and Kira her jewelry. I did not mean it to be “in your face” diversity. Just an acknowledgement that we were alive and well and getting beyond the pettiness. Just like the Russian Chekov. Just being there made a statement. No story needs to be unfolding like the trite child of two worlds they are doing yet again.

        • Travitt Hamilton

          Original Trek was also very in your face for its time.

      • Tone

        Exactly, and can you imagine just how long it would take just to write one episode, if it has to go through a board of censors to ensure that every agenda has been met, and no one has been offended…

        You end up with a show that struggles with its identity, and that is going to miss its first showing date buy a year…

        • Travitt Hamilton

          Guessing you two are white guys?

    • ReveurIngenu

      You’re totally right. What’s IN right now is transgenderism. They needed to have a transgender main character, or maybe an intersexual or androgynous. THAT would have been groundbreaking.

      • Tone

        Just as long as the show is not just all about them and their issues. That is not Star Trek.

      • Ben

        Gender Dysphoria should be cured by the 24th century.

  • Locutus

    Very well said. No doubt that she gets it. I wish some of the critics would come around too. Personally, I’m excited that the focus is on a female lead. I probably would prefer it to be Michele Yeoh honestly, but they are trying something different, which Star Trek needs.

  • When TOS came out, the network said that young men would identify with Kirk, old men would identify with the doctor, and women would identify with Rand, but since no one could possibly identify with a half Vulcan, Spock should be cut from the show.

    Of course Spock went on to become the most popular character on the show, and it turned out that LOTS of people identified with a half Vulcan. Scientists identified with his being the science officer, mixed-race people identified with his being a half-breed, people with Asperger’s identified with his difficulties in understanding human social cues, and anyone who felt like an outsider or a misfit identified with his being the only alien on the bridge.

    I’m glad women of color have actresses who represent them in Star Trek: Discovery, and I want to remind everyone who isn’t a woman of color that none of us are half Vulcans, either, and yet so very many of us saw aspects of ourselves in Spock. I hope everyone will give Sonequa Martin-Green and Michelle Yeoh a chance to display the humanity that all of us identify with, regardless of race or gender.

    • Locutus

      I could not agree more! Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

  • pittrek

    Well I think Sonequa misses the point. It sounds like she believes that people have a problem with the fact there are black people and gay people. After reading probably thousands of posts from different people in the youtube comments and various internet forums I have found ONE post where the poster said that he won’t watch a show with a mixed raced crew, and I still hope it was a bad joke. What do people complain about?
    1) That they have to pay for watching it (a fair comment)
    2) That the CG in the teaser looks like crap (not very fair, we haven’t seen any “real” examples of final CG effects)
    3) That the show looks like they’re concentrating on promote as many different minorities as possible instead of concentrating on good stories (again not fair, we haven’t seen a finished episode yet)

    • I agree that the outrage about a few racist trolls is out of proportion. But rather than Sonequa Martin-Green, the media is to blame for the inappropriate attention this whole issue gets and that distracts from justified issues with the new series. I didn’t find the interview in its original context, but I bet she was asked something like: “Some fans don’t seem to agree with the diversity in Discovery. What can you tell them?” In her position, I too would have emphasized how important diversity is in Star Trek, although as a fan I know that the mere question of having a diverse crew is secondary to the stories and to the “feel” of Star Trek.

      • Travitt Hamilton

        The question of having a diverse crew is INTEGRAL to the stories and feel of Star Trek.

        IDIC.

        • Ace Stephens

          I disagree with how it appears you frame this matter.

          I have stated before that I wouldn’t object to (and, in fact, I would probably enjoy…) a Star Trek show featuring an almost exclusively Chinese cast speaking Chinese while on a spaceship. The “diversity” element is secondary in such an individual case. For instance, thus far, most people on the show appear to speak English. I feel like the insistence upon IDIC in certain, limited contexts (irony…) may negate these more varied (from what we’ve seen) yet relatively “homogeneous” options.

          And they could also do a Star Trek show mostly about Klingons. Again, not really IDIC in itself (even if they come across “aliens” fairly regularly) but, by being itself in this larger tapestry, reenforcing IDIC. I don’t feel these shows would be intrinsically less Star Trek by virtue of their relatively homogeneous portrayals of main cast/crew.

    • But what are people basing #3 on? It seems like they’re saying that if you have “many different minorities” (which is amusing in the first place, considering there are far more brown people than there are white in the world) that somehow means the show is ‘about that’. Which really makes no sense. Again, DS9 had one white male member in its main cast, they seemed to do alright. This isn’t a change in Star Trek, this is a change in the reaction. I’m sorry, but anyone who says any version of “they’re throwing all of this diversity in our faces”, is making an offensive comment. It’s easy to cover one’s racist and homophobic opinions in the protective cladding of “just tell good stories”, but in the end it doesn’t negate the other end of that statement, “don’t talk so much about diversity, because that’s not important,” when, in fact, it’s very important and speaks to the heart of Star Trek, ever since 1966.

      • BatesHotel

        Two white male members. O’Brien and Bashir (Arabs are counted as white by the US government). Odo morphed himself into a white male, presumably in the image of the Bajoran scientist who “nurtured” him.

    • M33

      99.9% of people do NOT object to diversity of Discovery. It is bull to state otherwise, and creating inflammatory stories for the media to hype and sell.
      What irks people is it being pushed as an “issue”.
      When TOS or any other Trek was presented, they added diversity of ethnicity because of the context of the story — humanity working together beyond our petty differences of noticing race, etc.
      When the shows were presented, especially TOS, they presented a “show”, not promoting it as “hey, look at this show about diversity, and if you disagree with how we are presenting it, you must be a racist.”
      Instead, they did the best thing, which is key to Star Trek–they promoted a show about humans, and you might be aware that they were of different ethnicities… but it didn’t matter! It made powerful statements about the oneness of humanity without rubbing it in everyones face in a “political” way. It was brilliantly underplayed that eventually whole generations grew up watching the show and saw “people”, not “ethnicities”.
      THAT is Star Trek.

      • Travitt Hamilton

        That’s what the trailer here has done. The only reason people think it’s being ‘shoved down their throats,’ is because the leads aren’t straight white guys, and the promotional materials have reflected that.

        These fucking conservative snowflakes.

        • M33

          I’ve not seen that opinion anywhere from any trek fan.
          This “upset” that keeps getting perpetuated about “less whites” is a phony construct.

        • Andrew John

          You seem to have a problem with straight white guys. I feel as if the diversity is shoved down our throats. The perception is that there was something wrong with previous Star Trek movies and TV shows because they had white guys on it. Now they have decided to gut the franchise with poor acting, writing etc for the sake of diversity. They even hired based on an anti white agenda.

          The fact is there was diversity on previous Star Trek productions so there is no need to focus on it and make it centre stage. Choose based on ability and not on race and sexuality.

          Discovery is a shameless reboot with no originality.

    • BatesHotel

      You should check the comments in the ew.com piece. It’s a depressing eye-opener.

  • Hear! Hear!

  • Jaro Stun

    Very few people complain about diversity and declare diversity being wrong. Thats not the point. People (including myself) complain about diversity being showed down our throats and being made the almost key focus of the new show (at least in marketing efforts).

    Stop showing diversity down our throats, keep it on set and in the show and everything will be fine.

    • ReveurIngenu

      It’s “shove down”, not “show down”. But otherwise I agree with you.

      • Tone

        Shoved down…

    • Tone

      I agree, 100%

    • DC Forever

      There are unfortunately a lot of people on this planet who do in fact need diversity shoved down their throats.

    • Ace Stephens

      I’m trying to understand your point. Are you suggesting you find the (perceived) emphasis on “diversity” in marketing to be callous and exploitative in a sense, as though differing races, sexualities, etc. are a “gimmick” for the fictional work rather than something which is simply allowed to speak for itself?

    • Pedro Ferreira

      Thank you! Trying to win brownie points with liberals looks desperate.

  • M33
  • ReveurIngenu

    She misses the point of complaints the same way Quinto missed the point about Takei’s complaint on making Sulu gay in Trek Beyond. People are not complaining about there being a black or asian person. People are complaining that it’s so in-your-face look-at-me-i’m-diverse. And that they went out of their way to make sure the first criteria for being hired as lead was either being a female or being black, putting talent second to that.

    • ADeweyan

      So lets unpack what you’re saying here. To accuse them of “going out of their way” suggests you don’t think it’s realistic to have women of color play such a key role in Starfleet, among other things. The only way they could be going out of their way is if their way couldn’t naturally lead through where they went. Why do you think that?

      At the core of your complaint is exactly the tension that having obvious diversity in these shows is supposed to help resolve. In periods of social transition any move in one direction can seem forced and overdone to people who while they openly accept the principle being promoted, still exist (even unconsciously) with the view of the world that was created under the old view. This is not racism or bigotry, it is the growing pains of a culture overcoming an internal tension.

      • ReveurIngenu

        I don’t agree with seeing the world in colors, in sexualities, or based on the “minority status” of people. I don’t agree with casting roles to fill quotas, trying to represent as many “minorities” as possible all the while maintaining and encouraging the idea that these minorities are somehow being oppressed by whites (and white males at that) and need to have their chance in the spotlight.

        If they had put a casting calls for roles without specifying things like skin color, race, etc. and the end result was that a black woman ended up being the best fit for the role, I wouldn’t complain. But by their own admission, they specifically set out to hire a woman of color in the main role, discarding all other candidates who did not have the right gender or skin color (http://deadline.com/2016/08/star-trek-discovery-series-reboot-female-lead-cbs-all-access-casting-1201801744/ ). And it’s pretty clear that they repeated this process in order to complete their “diverse” cast.

        We’re not the ones who don’t believe “people of color” can get the main role if in competition with everybody. It’s liberals who believe that affirmative action is the only way to achieve diversity. Tell me, who’s the racist : the person who believes that diversity can only be acheived through affirmative action and discrimination against whites and males, or the one who believes criteria such as skin color, sexuality, etc. should not be a criterion for selection, and that minorities are capable of beating the competition without the need for affirmative action ?

        • Travitt Hamilton

          White straight guys choose white straight guys until they’re forced to choose someone else. That’s why there have always been mostly straight white guys in lead roles in tv and film. Even now, with all the racist ‘political correctness,’ panic, it’s mostly straight white guys.

          IDIC.

        • Joshua Houseknecht

          You claim not to see the world in colors, a person’s sexuality, or see someone’s financial status. Yet you are quick to label someone a “liberal” and but people in boxes from a political point of view. I find that ironic.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            They are liberal though, not sure what’s to figure out here?

        • Link

          This is certainly not a case of affirmative action. They created a story that includes characters with diverse backgrounds, so of course they are going to cast those characters with actors that fit those backgrounds.

        • iMike

          The very concept of Star Trek is “liberal.” It’s not a dirty word …

        • Pedro Ferreira

          Exactly! Cast who’s right for the role, not just someone based on race or gender. The thing is Bryan Fuller-himself is behind this is what do you expect?

    • Pedro Ferreira

      Good points. It’s like the Ghostbusters reboot. Make a film featuring four women who are Ghostbusters but a film about four women being Ghostbusters.

  • Tone

    I sense the “Ghostbusters III” marketing in these types of press releases from CBS.

    Look how that turned out for that particular movie.

    • Cabo 5150

      I don’t “sense” anything of the sort personally.

      I see a direct response to what has been some fairly ridiculous, unexpected, and borderline hysterical commentary (white genocide) reference the forthcoming diversity to be presented in DSC.

      Indeed, while many commentators are calling it diversity – more simply, I call it a reflection of real life. About time for a progressive show like Star Trek IMHO.

    • Pedro Ferreira

      THAT travesty was NOT Ghostbusters III.

  • Fiery Little One

    … Hmm… Yeah I don’t get the fans who complain about it at all. The ones saying it’s an issue that’s a little too in your face, I’ll grant that it might be the case.

    • Travitt Hamilton

      How? Should they have not put them in the trailer? Or put Isaacs (Jewy sounding last name though) in the trailer so straight whiteys don’t get their little feelings hurt?

      I know this isn’t your issue, just responding to your comment.

      • Fiery Little One

        I’m sure some of *those* fans would feel that would “fix” things.

  • Cabo 5150

    Oh, well said Sonequa.

  • Ason12

    I think the best thing to remember here is just that we haven’t seen anything yet. We have a production side view of things. DS9 pulled off diversity extraordinarily well for the time by showing us these people as people and not as a type. That’s the point here, to move beyond squabbles over race, gender, sexuality, etc. and just get to the point where those are aspects of the people’s lives and are not in fact the defining characteristic of that individual.

    And so far, we have no footage to go off of that says they’re anything but people. We haven’t seen anything like that acknowledged outside of a few production related statements (that were likely needed based on some of the comments they received).

    Really, we have to wait and see how they handle it. Hopefully it’ll be done with a deft touch!

  • Robert Green

    If the star trek producers truly wanted to be diverse and represent the future then let’s take the projected demographics of Earth in 2100 as a starting point. 38% of the population will be African, 44% will be Asian and 10% will be European/North American. And what is the population of Earth compared to the rest of the Federation? This attempt at “diversity” is a 2017 concept of hollywood’s current culture. Let’s wait and see what the shows are like. But the objection and concern here is that the shows will be a reflection of the preachy bullshit treacle we have been seeing for many years now in every aspect of film and TV production. Diversity is not a goal in hollywood, it is a concept. If it were then hollywood would itself be diverse. The below quote is from The Hollywwod Patch based on a USC/UCLA study:

    “It added that film studio heads were 94 percent white and 100 percent male, film studio management is 92 percent white and 83 percent male, film studio unit heads are 96 percent white and 61 percent male, TV network and studio heads are 96 percent white and 71 percent male, TV senior management is 93 percent white and 73 percent male, TV unit heads are 86 percent white and 55 percent male.”

  • BatesHotel

    It’s the 23rd century within the milieu of Trek, therefore all prejudices and poverties have been conquered on Earth. Extrapolating from population statistics today, it shouldn’t be at all surprising to have an Asian and black woman as high ranking officers. There should also be a lot more South Asians in the Trek milieu unless Khan’s eugenics war depopulated the area after World War III. Starfleet should be incredibly diverse if it’s going to be realistic to the Trek milieu and narrative. And Michelle Yeoh is a great get for a TV Trek cast, we are very lucky to have her talent on the show. I think Sonequa will be fine as well. I just hope we have great stories.

  • Travitt Hamilton

    I feel like a lot of people are forgetting how important Worf being a Klingon was to TNG and DS9. These stories were interesting precisely because they were about a different ‘race.’ Also all the development of Vulcan culture.

    IDIC.

  • Corey Burnham

    She sounds like a Starfleet officer. Picard to be exact.

  • spooky

    I could care less about what colour or sexual orientation someone is… so long as there is a good story and chemistry between the actors/characters. The only thing I can’t get behind one hundred percent is the timeline… I am sick and tired of them backpedaling. I’ve wanted a return to forward thinking… that requires imagination though. If they had set the series during Sulu’s time I might not be so annoyed or perhaps after Voyager… I’d be okay. Heck, I am waiting for the series that sets the story on the first crew traveling from one galaxy to the other… that would be interesting.

  • MidnightEkaki

    I see and understand peoples complaints about diversity being shoved down your throats. Well… somewhat. It is a little annoying when they focus a lot on someones race/gender/sexuality in shows/films and are like ‘hey look we’re being diverse!!1’ for the sake of it, but to me they’re not doing that, they’re just casting people/making characters who are different on purpose in order to show a diverse cast instead of all straight white males, which Roddenberry wanted to do from the very start. IF in the show they do focus a lot on these aspects in an annoying way, THEN you can complain about it (though I still don’t see why it would be such a big deal besides just being annoying) rather than just assuming they want to ‘shove it down your throat’

    • Bill Smith

      I am disappointed at the lack of gay Muslim females transgender people in the show. Shame on the Discovery bosses

  • Bill Smith

    It seems the same liberal agenda of “diversity” has infected Discovery. Apparently the goofs running the show failed to understand why Ghostbusters 3 bombed hard, and why Wonder Woman is kicking ass.

    Liberals live to force their values onto others no matter the cost. Now their mental illness has infected our beloved Star Trek.

    Diversity is fine – just please stop shoving it down our throats making it feel forced. Controlled diversity is fine. You just don’t empty every vial in the chemistry lab and mix them all together. They are separate for a reason.

  • Bill Smith

    As long as the Captain of Discovery is a white male, I’m fine with the show. After all, there is nothing wrong with being a white male. After all, the greatest Captain of all, Kirk, was a white male. Michalea here would not even have this chance if not for the bravura acting talents of a white male.

    And there is nothing wrong with that. IDIC.

  • Bill Smith

    SPOILER ALERT.

    Season one is about 10 years before Kirk. Season 2 is supposed to be during the post “Undiscovered country/Harriman generations” on the era appropriate U.S.S. Discovery. Season 3 is set up to be during my the TNG era on you guessed it – the ship named Discovery during the Picard era.

    Most exciting of all, from season 4 onward it’s going to be set 10 years post-Voyager with all new technology. This is the season that will “feel” like real Star Trek. Apparently the post-Voyager Discovery will be a very deep space vessel, using perfected delta quadrant technology like slipstream drive. They brought on the writer of those Voyager novels for a reason folks.

    The awesome thing is the events from season to season will have a direct effect on future seasons. This is what I am hearing from various long term insiders in the sci-fi field. Some very prominent names I talk with and am privy to their conversations.

    Every season shows how section 31 has shaped the federation.

  • Jakoline

    Unity is our strength, not diversity and some cultures are better then others.

  • Pedro Ferreira

    Really I think a black woman being the lead is the least of the issues with Discovery. Having said that everyone wants to earn brownie points and the way you do that on TV today is by promoting the hell out of something liberal. In all honesty as long as the scripts are good and the characters don’t resort to racial cliches like most TV and film does today we’re okay. But no, I really hope they didn’t cast a black woman because they felt they needed to. In that case yeah they screwed up.

  • Dan King

    I am looking foreword to this show greatly, but why are they pushing the diversity angle so much? It’s odd and strange

  • clbrown

    As several other people have pointed out, the complaints are not about there being various races, ethnicities, orientations, etc, present.

    No, the complaints are the “LOOK AT ME, I’M BEING DIVERSE! SEE HOW DIVERSE I AM!” histrionics we keep being exposed to.

    Honestly… how many of our Star Trek stories really would have been different, from a storytelling standpoint, if you found out that Lieutenant Kelso was a vegisexual? Or that Yeoman Holt was into Orion gang-bangs?

    IT DOESN’T MATTER. Unless you come up with a story where this is at the center of what’s being talked about… it’s a DISTRACTION from the storytelling, isn’t it?

    Just like, in the first seasons of TNG, Roddenberry’s “humanity is perfect” preaching distracted from, and interfered with, the storytelling. And just like “Humanity striving to stand on our own” as a PREACHING POINT made the first season and a half of “Enterprise” so tedious.

    Just tell a story. Don’t wrap it up in “we’re more important that our storytelling because (fill in the blank)” games.

    If the storytelling is good, the audience WON’T CARE if the science officer is a compulsive onanist.