Cast And Crew Talk ‘Star Trek’ Discovery’ Feminism, Missing Months, And Goofing Off On Set

(Photo: Nerdist)

Once again there are a number of video interviews with Star Trek: Discovery cast and crew to catch up on from the last few days. Check out highlights and watch the latest below.

Is Tilly on the spectrum?

In a new TV Guide interview bit, actress Mary Wiseman talks about how some feel that her Cadet Tilly is on the autism spectrum. Wiseman says it isn’t something that they have discussed when developing her character, but she did say:

“The fact that people are getting that out of her is so moving and inspiring,” she added. “And the idea that this character that we all built together could make people feel seen or represented and show that they care so much is incredibly moving. I encourage people to put themselves in the show and see themselves in the show, and I’m gonna try my hardest to live up to that.”

Watch the segment below.

Martin-Green and Mary Chieffo on ‘Discovery’ as “feminist” show

Star Trek: Discovery stars Sonequa Martin-Green (Michael Burnham) and Mary Chieffo (L’Rell) were guests on the Nerdist webseries Fangirling, where they talked about playing powerful women in Star Trek. You can watch the full episode below.

And late last week the same pair participated in a Facebook Live chat where they took questions about life in the mirror universe and dropped hints (late in the show) about how the season will resolve their character arcs with “redemption” and “absolution.”

What happened during the nine months?

On After Trek there was a discussion about the nine months of the Klingon War that the USS Discovery missed after Stamets missed the timing on his jump back from the Mirror Universe. Director and executive producer Olatunde Osunsanmi talked about how bad things got to push the Federation so far. Watch that below.

Fun on the set

Also on Sunday’s After Trek had a fun package showing how the actor’s on set of Discovery pass the time in between takes, especially dancing. Check it out below.

Anthony Rapp on being an “actorvist”

Anthony Rapp was a guest on the CBS chat show The Talk where he talked about the importance to him about “living an open life” on Star Trek. Watch the segment below. 

Social post of the day

The official CBS Star Trek Instagram account posted a nice behind the scenes image of the USS Discovery bridge from episode 114.

Behind the scenes on the Disco Bridge. #startrekdiscovery

A post shared by Star Trek Discovery (@startrekcbs) on


Star Trek: Discovery is available exclusively in the USA on CBS All Access. It airs in Canada on the Space Channel is available on Netflix everywhere else.

Keep up with all the Star Trek: Discovery news at TrekMovie.

newest oldest

I have been critical of the shoddy writing of Disco Trek, so let me give praise where praise is due. Mary Chieffo makes a better Klingoid than the likes of Lursa or B’Etor. #YayStrongSexyKlingonLady

Agreed re. L’Rell. Her “death roar” was…incredible. Just a lovely contralto wail. I also feel like the makeup artists have softened her eyes slightly. Whether it’s Chieffo’s performance or the makeup or a combination of the two, she’s far more “feminine,” for lack of a better term, than when we first met her.

Yeah and its nice to see her being so developed since she is essentially representing the entire race since being captured.

Apparently it is “feminism” when you push women ahead *at the expense* of men (at least they are being true to the literal meaning of the term, which is *not* gender equality!) and literally reverse the disproportionate gender balance compared to 50 years ago, as evidenced by the complete lack of any human white straight males in the cast (or even the guest actors) now that Lorca is gone (and whose alpha male status has been thoroughly discredited by being outed as an evil fascist Nazi), which is anything but representation of the demographic, and, may I say that, putting gasoline in the fire of the current divisive climate instead of embracing the enemy.

When women can only be strong by portraying men as weak (due to their absence, or their obvious “beta male status” as evidenced by “prey” Saru and “whiny” Tyler), by portraying them as Mary Sues with superpowers against all probabilities (and this is a problem well beyond Star Trek – see Rey and the deliberate weakening of men in the last Star Wars movie), this is not just doing a disservice to men, but to women as well. We have been tricked into thinking this is all about men and all the problems they allegedly cause, but actually it is still about women and who they want to be in this society? Do they really want to be equal on level footing, or only on their own terms, in some kind of rigged deal?

@Vulcan Soul: So Paul Stamets and Hugh Culbert were both weak? I hardly think so.

I like these characters, but they do not represent the straight majority among males, let alone the “Lorca type” (non-evil). Obviously Stamets is meant to be the “anti-Lorca”, and not just because of his science focus. Besides Culbert was *also* killed off, which certainly ruffled feathers in several camps. When a certain demographic in this country already got the feeling they are being given the stick, as evidenced by a certain election, it is hardly smart to confirm this suspicion by excluding them from the conversation and making them “disappear”. It’s divisive Trek at its “best”.

Well, they weren’t straight so . . . obviously ;)

…as they were touting months before the premiere even, over and over again. It is not me who made this characteristic the sole reason of existence for these characters, and the talking point of the show. It is rather sad when a science fiction show is being abused as a partisan political vehicle, as it still is.

No, no one ever made that the sole point of their existence. It is you who keeps whining about it. And you didn’t answer TrekFanofTomorrow’s question–do you see them as “weak”? You didn’t mention them in your original rant about the representation of men on the show, and that’s what the question was directed to.

Many people mentioned their annoyance about their aggressive “sales tactics” before the premiere. This is hardly “minorities being portrayed as just being there” and not something special or unusual. There is a difference between appearing inclusive and appearing divisive. The point that the majority should be represented too *naturally* goes without saying…

if you reread my commentary, I was talking about “the complete lack of any human white straight males” so it is a moot point, not an omission. And no, Stamets and Culbert are/were not being portrayed as leaders, both by rank and by character.

@VS. It’s not a moot point. You are choosing to exclude certain people when you post, and then choosing to exclude them when you’re challenged. So, whose being divisive? And, yes, you did despite–your best efforts answer–the question.

When you say that it’s not just “minorities being portrayed” in quotation marks, who are you citing? And why should, to follow that logic, your so-called “minorities” be glad to “just be there”?

I’ve defended and will continue to defend your right to post, but you might want to think about which battles you choose to fight and, after that, about the wording and assumptions of your posts.

@VS. Now you’re just being willfully silly. I missed the “Now With Gays!!!” Discovery balloon in the Macy’s parade. And all those “Now Trek’s less pale!” robocalls to my parent’s house.

People asked about it at panel discussions (and so multiple outlets reported on the same answer) and in junket interviews. The reason journalists covered it? Because it’s news. Trek, which very publicly highlighted its diversity (maybe not before it aired — I wasn’t there — but definitely in the years since), has been behind on gay characters — so “will this show finally have a gay character?” — was a newsy thing to ask/write about.

And look, Nichelle Nichols was on the cover of Ebony, if I recall correctly.

Also, it was a gay showrunner proud to finally have a gay character — and the typical response: “why are you forcing this on *me*” It’s not about you. It’s about that gay/black/Asian kid who finally gets to see someone like themselves in a show they love.

BTW: Inclusive vs. divisive is nonsense. It’s like people accusing Barack Obama of race-baiting for talking about racism. Including diverse characters is divisive if you talk about it but okay if you hope nobody notices? Give me a break, snowflake.

I don’t get it Vulcan Soul, you complain about making characters a part of a certain demographic for the sake of inclusiveness, yet.. you want a straight white male character for what exactly..?

No (facepalm), because most males are straight and the biggest ethnicity is, still, white. If their casting was not agenda-driven this is also what we would get: realistic representation, and a natural reflection of the demographics instead of bending over backwards to create some artificial unrealistic political vehicle. As I mentioned before, if they meant to reflect on a “future United Earth demographic”, they should start by making most characters Asian and stop using Anglo-American names like “Cornwell” and “Phillipa” (for a Chinese character to boot!)

Folks, you are doing a fine job of dragging this conversation away from the main point which again was why women can’t be equal without making strong men and male leaders disappear. I totally support a show that has both strong and weak women, and strong and weak men, in equal measures.

To reiterate: Culbert is dead and Stamets is not a leader.

the biggest ethnicity is, still, white.

Umm, have you looked at the world population of white males compared with, say, Asian and South Asian males?

Lol, Marja. The best way to deal with trolls is to let them keep digging a deeper and deeper hole.

@Marja And where are all the Asian and South Asian males in Discovery (face palm)?

I know, right? I hope we see some next season!

@Marja Ditto.

Anyone here watch The Good Place? Half the main cast is female and/or of color. And its one of those things that I didn’t even fully notice until I read it mentioned somewhere.

Jack,

Re: Anyone here watch The Good Place?

I do, and I enjoy it as do you. But I can’t say I was completely comfortable that the show has revealed ultimately that they were all in reality judged bad and deserving of The Bad Place, when I realized it, and the vast majority of the other roles cast are actually demons.

I suppose there’s some solace to be had that the only role to date that had a neon sign of “GOOD” slapped on the character was the judge played by Maya Rudolph, but the only “good” demon IS Ted Danson?

@Marja @Vulcan Soul Rhys is Asian and Tyler is half South Asian.

No, VS, we know exactly what your (tired) main point was. You are doing a (not) fine job of trying to ignore challenges and change the subject.

@Holden There is no challenge and your repeated ad hominens just prove you don’t have a point.

It is most clear to everyone your clan would just like dissenters to disappear, by any means really. Which really deserves no further comment.

Sigh. I didn’t realize I belonged to a “clan.”

Let me explain this to you again: you have every right to say what you want. I will defend your right to say what you want, as I already have.

If it appears to be an ad hominem attack, that’s only because I’m responding to the same tired rants you have posted repeatedly.

But others have the right to challenge you as well. When challenged, you try to change the subject.

You like playing the victim card. You are a “dissenter” who is being tracked down by . . .? If someone specificaly tries to take away your rights to ramble on a Trek fan website, let me know. I’ll be first in line to defend you.

Otherwise, STFU about your petty personal problems, and let’s get back to talking about Trek, huh?

You called me a troll above, which really is just meant to disqualify my point of view, and someone asked for my banning yesterday. So I am being paranoid?

The funny thing is that I am arguing from a position of moderation and center. Of course, when you stand sufficiently far on either side, the center will look “extremist” to you.

So my point is: let’s *either* have a natural representation of current demographics, have all skin colors, sexual orientations, genders, but also character personalities and intellectual views according to their actual representation in this country (minority or majority), which would be truly inclusive – politically too. So are you really arguing against having a strong Picard leader-type character in this series, not necessarily as the captain protagonist, but as a recurring admiral, other ship captain, Starfleet command etc.?
*Or* let Discovery portray the most likely future composition of United Earth, which would mean the show should be neither American nor so thoroughly non-Asian (killed off “Phillippa Georgiou” notwithstanding).

My gripe is that currently, Discovery is neither.

Yes, someone called for your banning yesterday. . . and who was the *only* person to defend your rights and say that wasn’t appropriate??? Wait for it.

You don’t speak from a position of moderation. You are easily defensive and vocal about anything in Trek that threatens the perceived supremacy of white heterosexual men (sorry, but that seems to be the only leader you’d accept), and only after being challenged do you try to sound reasonable.

Sorry, VS.

I hadn’t followed up on that particular thread, I see. Like you said this is a blog for a fictional series and shouldn’t take the center of all our attention.

I criticized many other points about Discovery including its sacrifice of characters and plot for twists, the unrealistic design and the prequel setting (just fewer people attack me on these points). The inept messaging just takes the cake. You just need to look for it – even if you got a hammer it ain’t all just nails!

FWIW my favorite Trek after TOS/TNG is Voyager with the first female captain (and female engineer)! Funny enough 20 years ago that show did a much better job at being modern without being extremist and playing to one particular camp.

And again can we make this about the argument and not the person? My initial argument – that this series deserves both strong (and non-evil) female and male human leaders so it doesn’t look like the females are only strong at the expense of males – is entirely reasonable.

VS, I criticized many other points about Discovery including its sacrifice of characters and plot for twists

That’s one area where I agree with you. I’m sorry to have lost the interesting character Lorca to the absurd “mirror” twist, but he played it well. Lorca was a very interesting character, but not because he was white. It’s because Isaacs used a good palette of colors in his performance, you should pardon the pun.

Voyager was cool in its day for having Janeway, Torres, Kes, the Delaney sisters, the Wildmans (Samantha & Naomi), and Seven Of Nine on screen showing everybody how fierce and amazing they were, but that was then and this is now. Plus, people weren’t exactly enamored of Seven Of Nine or Kes (in particular Kate Mulgrew/Janeway for Seven/Jeri Ryan replacing Kes/Jennifer Lien, and especially for Seven’s clothing) so your point loses any power it had.

Admiral Cornwell is white. Peach. Whatever.

Oh, but she’s a woman.

Also? In my lifetime, right, center, and left have moved toward the right every single year. Obama was a centrist, Hillary and Bill Clinton were centrists.

Republicans have become ultra-conservative [some to the point of wanting Christian hegemony, and starting the End Times].

The only lefties are people like Bernie Sanders, Robert Reich and the likes of Progressives such as myself.

Adjust your terminology, because you sound like you have no. idea. of what “center” is.

@Marja. This. There are folks on twitter talking about libtards, radical leftists and liberal insanity when referring to policies that Reagan-era conservatives would have considered at least center-right.

@VS Because Starfleet staffs ships according to a strict racial/gender quota? And if it did, there’d be way fewer white males.

Furthermore, exactly why is the concept of an “alpha male” so important to you? Why does there need to be an alpha male? Why not an alpha female? Or an alpha non-gendered alien?

You need to be looking to the future, not back at antiquated modes of conformity.

Why not both? Non-gendered aliens are fine but they are not saying anything about the majority of *human* viewers. People look for identification in drama, it’s surprising I have to make that point. I have argued for less “Americanization” of these shows for ages and always being told “But it’s an American TV show”! That’s why the diversity of Discovery feels so hollow: not just because it has no intellectual diversity, only black and white sledgehammer, but because it is so utterly unrealistic in terms of the China/Asian-dominated future. And do you know what the Chinese think about “homosexual and transgender representation”? Banishing the demon to let in the chief devil is not very future-oriented politics.

It must be really sad to be you. Watching a show out of spite just so you can troll the comment sections of a few websites, only to see that nobody cares about your backwards views. LOL

This rant is so ridiculous that it started whining about “weak men”, and ended up whining about “diversity” and “transgender representation”.

FFS, just stop watching it and move one.

You know what, VS? People of Color, gay people and women have had to identify with white males for the entire time span European and US fiction have been produced.

Please learn to deal with the turnabout. You CAN identify with people who look different than you. How many Trekkers have identified with Spock? Quite a few!

Hee-hee, I was so hoping you’d say you were tired of them “shoving it down your throat”

It’s marketing, pal. Of course, you know this. There’s not much to talk about before a show launches, especially a secretive one, so they tout what they can. The press covered Trek’s first woman and first black captain. Both actors were asked about it in interviews. Heck, Roddenberry made hay out of the interracial kiss and the black/white guys for decades.

Golly, Vulcan Soul, I feel so bad for you, because it seems you’re an older white guy with problems adjusting to the modern world.

While women have been struggling against the patriarchy for centuries.

I’ll play a sad song for you on my teensy violin.

And you fix that by *reversing* injustice? Let’s be the perpetrators for once and the others the victims? How’s that equality? Equality of opportunities, not of outcome, mind you.

Ironically, this “modern world” you imagine only exists in the geographically and demographically tiny Western world. The places of the future, which you wish dominate apparently, have none of it.

First, this is not a rhetorical question – Do you truly feel you are being persecuted because you are a straight white male? And if so, how? I genuinely want to know.

VS, this “modern world” you imagine only exists in the geographically and demographically tiny Western world.
As does the “majority white male” population. Check your facts.

How are white males the frikkin’ victims here? If you choose not to watch a show because it doesn’t have enough hetero white males for you, don’t let the door hit your butt on the way out, man.

People of color, women, gays and other minorities have watched Trek for years, hoping for some people who shared their identity. Finally this began in the Berman era. “Discovery” is bringing it further.

By the way, women are the majority of Earth’s population.

‘Scuse me while I flounce out of this thread ;^}

What injustice? That a white straight guy isn’t playing captain? Good grief. Jason Isaacs isn’t exactly going to have trouble finding work.

And I don’t follow this whole demographics argument at all.

Exactly. I have no problem with women captians, first officers etc. but come on. I actually like Janeway after Kirk as best captain. (I must be sexist) Star fleet is the spacy navy of the future and not a Peace Keeping Force (like Pike said) and they arent’t just explorers like Columbus or Cortez despite the bs the people in charge of Trek now push. Look at all the episodes either dealing with military settings and operations to war and battles and the structure of command. Women are not into the military, exploring, certain leadership rolls nearly as much as men are so lets forgot any sense of reality. What the left refuses to acknowledge is men and women are different and like different things. Obvously there are exceptions. So to have all at the same time A woman captain (georgiou), and basically first officer (face it that’s what she is. Specialist? What the hell is that?) a woman and both helmsmen (excuse me helmspersons) are women, even the damn robot is a woman and the Admiral is a woman and a few guys in the backgtound that rarely say anything, not to mention the dopey Tilly and then even in the mirror universe the Emperor is a woman (should be empress like was said in Enterprise but have to be PC). And of course all the women and even the klingon to a degree are good or redemable and the men, especially white men, are bad or silent. Evil… Read more »

@G66 As a straight white man I can say I don’t care. In my opinion Discovery has strong interesting characters. To quote Micheal Jackson, and add to it, Ain’t no matter if you’re black or white. Male or female. Straight or gay. While I hope you and @Vulcan soul continue to watch the show, honestly Discovery may not be the show for ye.

I don’t care about ones color or gender but the show is obviously makign a blatant effor to do so.

@G66 If you don’t care about colour or gender, then why does it matter?

Gosh, to name just a couple of examples: right now there’s a reboot of Dynasty where the (Venezuelan) trophy wife and daughter are executives, the rival billionaire family is black and the maybe-a-golddigger relative is gay (and Venezuelan) instead of being Heather Locklear. There’s a (surprisingly good) reboot of One Day at a Time with a Cuban-American family (and a gay daughter). It just makes things more interesting. I don’t follow Dynasty- or Norman Lear- fan forums, but I wouldn’t suspect that there’s been much outrage.

We’ve seen Trek with white, male human captains (including this one) and we will again. I truly don’t understand the issue here. What’s there to be threatened about?

Why’s “blatant” the go-to word with you guys? Should it be hidden? A secret? Yeah, the publicity machine pushed it as a new angle — so what? That’s what publicity machines do. Early TOS sold the show with photos of Grace Lee-Whitney.

And if you’re feeling left out, welcome to pretty-much everyone else’s world.

But the white male majority in European fiction, TV and movies hasn’t been blatant at all. No, no.

OMG get over yourself. A little advance and change and you feel threatened? Good grief.

G66, go and find a time machine to use, and when you do use it to go back in time to a past era you’re comfortable with, please stay there.

I know I am late in this discussion but my 2 cents worth is, Who cares? These are people in a story. Who gives a damn whether they are Female or Male, or what sexual orientation they have. Hell, who cares what planet they are from? Many of you need to chill and enjoy a tv show. Some of you have too much time on your hands.😉

“Women are not into the military, exploring, certain leadership rolls nearly as much as men are so lets forgot any sense of reality. What the left refuses to acknowledge is men and women are different and like different things.”

Yes! Why isn’t there more aerobics on Discovery? I want realism, dammit!

G66,

Re: Women are not into … certain leadership rolls nearly as much as men are so lets forgot any sense of reality.

This unwarranted assumption on your part is not reflected in the biological scientific record. Our nearest great ape cousins, chimpanzees, for example, form both matriarchies and patriarchies. The inherent characteristic you claim that the majority of human females possess of not being “into” being leaders of the pack that you hold as true is where any sense of science-based reality has been forgotten.

G66 Star fleet is the spacy navy of the future and not a Peace Keeping Force (like Pike said) and they arent’t just explorers like Columbus or Cortez despite the bs the people in charge of Trek now push.

Dream on.
Apparently there is a subset of Trek fans who think Star Trek is all about space battles.

It’s not. It’s a rich story about moral quandaries, social injustices and much, much more. The space battles usually happen when someone stands in the way of Starfleet’s business, which is to explore strange new worlds and gather scientific data; research; help and protect member planets and races, non-member races, and occasionally enemy races [as is traditional in Law of the Sea, after a battle is over — it wasn’t always done however].

And THANK GOD Starfleet are not like Columbus or Cortez, who explored solely for exploitation of the New World’s resources [kinda like the Terran Empire], spreading European diseases, enslaving the populations, and killing them willy-nilly.

You’re another fan who needs to read some history. SMDH.

“You’re another fan who needs to read some history. SMDH.”

And actually watch some Star Trek.

It is hilarious that some dudes would feel threatened by a few fictitious ladies from a TV show that is only available via streaming behind a paywall. Someone has deep sexual insecurities…

Pretty much that, Victorinox.

I’m realizing that the heart of this kind of conservatism is the inability (or refusal) to see the world from anyone else’s point of view. It’s all about “me” and “what’s mine.”

Indeed.

Exactly that, Jack.

Killing Trek! Keep preaching to everyone towards one point of view (the hollywood liberal view) and insulting the other half or more of the country and the ratings and movie going audience will keep shrinking. TOS didn’t preach and instead made good thought provoking and not so in your face obvious judgemental stories. TOS a dmany episodes to the left and many to the right sides of the political spectrum which is why people on both sides loved the show. Kirk and the constitution and the black/white on different sides racism were great stories unlike how far left the propoganda has gone with the show. Star wars went overboard and look what happened. Almost a billion less in revenue compred to previous film.

Proofreading and spell checking might give you more credibility as a writer.

And there’s very little about Discovery that’s “preachy,” btw. It’s actual representation of women, racial minorites, and the LGBTQ communities is actually pretty conservative as most shows go these days.

I love Discovery overall, but there are many shows that have gone far beyond it in this regard.

Is Modern Family preachy and decisive? How about Blackish?

Discovery is so far behind TV in this regard. It could be so much bolder.

And ironically it’s because they are trying not to offend audiences like you.

Should we hold Discovery up to the standards of the craziness of some of these other shows, including the ultraviolence of GoT, or reality? Calling Discovery’s cast conservative is pretty daring if you familiarize yourself with the official national demographics (again, now and not in 200 years).

What exactly is “bold and daring” about making a cast primarily a minority skin color, or sexual orientation? Should we also ask African TV shows to have more white people because that is “bold” in their context? This is just skin deep diversity, not about a diversity of ideas.

Star Trek was always inclusive of its audiences as much as its cast, a family show even that inspired millions of kids (including, ironically, girls) to pursue a science career. Now Discovery and its penchant for violence has already sacrificed the latter in favor of clickbait headlines on social media, should it also fuel the divisive political climate of the country? We really should look at the bigger picture here and not just at scoring points for our camp.

“Calling Discovery’s cast conservative is pretty daring if you familiarize yourself with the official national demographics (again, now and not in 200 years).”

Are we forgetting that Starfleet is NOT an American organization. If you look at worldwide demographics, you will see that the US is not a cross-section of the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_world)

“What exactly is “bold and daring” about making a cast primarily a minority skin color, or sexual orientation? Should we also ask African TV shows to have more white people because that is “bold” in their context? This is just skin deep diversity, not about a diversity of ideas.”

I’m not sure why this offends you so much? I assume you have no problem with a cast that is primarily white, male and straight? If you don’t have a problem with one, than why the other? Does having a diverse cast hurt you in someway?

Star Trek is a fairly conservative show. You are defining “conservative” in political terms (with your own set of questionable assumptions that are neither here nor there). I’m talking about conservative in the aesthetic sense–meaning it doesn’t take nearly as many devisive risks are you seem to think.

The point of my examples is that there are tons of shows on TV already that are more risk-tasking than Disco. How many shows feature strong female protagonists? How many shows feature openly gay couples expressing affection? How many shows tackle difficult political content? How many other shows have represented all the little things that you’re so easily triggered by time and time again? Tons. And most are just as if not way more daring than anything in Trek. If you don’t see that, then maybe you’ve just lost touch with the world, and that’s what you’re so perpetually pissed off about.

But stop taking those issues out on Discovery. And learn to pick your battles better (all this BS began just because you were triggered by the word “feminism”) or you will be increasingly tuned out.

Exactly! What’s funny is how far behind Star Trek has been in regards to gay and lesbian representation. Nearly every show I watch has a gay character and the display is much more open about it than what you get on Discovery. And no one at any time on that show has mentioned the plight of gays because its Star Trek and there is no ‘plight’, they just are another couple so how is that being preachy? Or the fact there are more women in charge? In Trek world its just normal as it should be but as you said plenty of women have been leading shows for decades now. I find it funny this is an ‘issue’ on Discovery because most of it feels pretty ho-hum today and yet people were losing their minds over it. Bizarre.

Wait, you’re arguing that, because there’s now not a white, straight human male in the main cast (you argue, excluding Shazad Latif), Discovery’s not inclusive? Huh?

Well, Shazad Latif isn’t fully white (he’s part Scottish, English AND Pakistani) – so he probably doesn’t count in VS’ mind.

Aww, are we pissed because straight white males aren’t the default on TV anymore? Suck it up, buttercup/creampuff, get a clue, get an education, and finally, get a life.

Agreed. Discovery handled a gay relationship as it should have – as something that just, exists. It was not showed in our face. Compare that with how American Gods did as same-sex relationship with the taxi driver and genie… that scene actually made my brother stop watching the show.
And really, this Vulcansoul guy needs to take a break and check back on older shows, Trek was always famous for diverse casts. (Also, why does Tyler not count as white and straight? He is technically not klingon anymore).

BB Shockwave Tyler’s actor is half Pakistani.

“TOS didn’t preach”

One of the funniest things I’ve ever read on this site.

I agree. TOS was very preachy for the times. Equality and in your face science based reasoning. The short skirts were a distraction but I never minded.😁

Oh indeed. Every episode was almost like those Masters of the Universe end of episode lessons. I am a Trekkie, yes, but I have still yet to finish watching Season 3 of that series… to me it and Enterprise are the Trek shows I enjoyed the least. They morals are so heavy-handed.

Follow-ups don’t do as well as the originals: The Last Jedi performed fairly comparably to the Empire Strikes Back. And it still made $1.3-billion. It was the biggest movie of last year.

What preaching? Have you seen early TNG?

BTW, the Constitution is not on the right side of the political spectrum. If you think that, you’re pretty misinformed.

TOS didn’t preach?? TOS is my favourite Star Trek series and if you don’t think it preached then you never watched a damn episode of the show. TOS hit you over the head with its message of tolerance and equality until you were dizzy, far far more than any other series in the franchise ever did.

You think showing two gay men brushing their teeth beside each other is the “hollywood liberal view”? If that had been an episode of The Original Series, they’d have beamed down to the Planet of the Gays, and discovered that on this world, straight people are hunted like animals because they want to breed in the “natural” way. The final scene would have been Kirk, Spock and McCoy on the bridge of the Enterprise, discussing how insane the whole thing was, and how it makes you think about how badly gay people themselves used to be treated on Earth, before we learned to respect each other. Let That Be Your Last Gay Battlefield.

TOS was *groundbreaking* in how liberal it was. Discovery is a great show, but it is not groundbreaking. In terms of diversity and representation, it is absolutely middle of the road.

TOS was EXTREMELY Liberal.
TNG definitely wasn’t conservative either.

LOL thank you. I have said this myself on other threads as well and TOS was a VERY liberal show. It’s just considered less liberal today because yeah we have actually made many of the progress TOS was trying to convey. Obviously we still have many ways to go on how it saw the world itself was being set up but its clearly liberal and yes was VERY preachy. Kirk did more monologuing than Abraham Lincoln. The show hit you over the head on Federation values.

Really? Tilly is a bit awkward around people, gets easily excited, etc. Y’know who was like that? Barclay on TNG. And I identified a LOT with him because I tend to be like him too. But that does not immediately mean “autism”. It just means not ever person is the same, and not everyone integrates so well into a team and society like most people.

I think some people took her comment about a condition (which meant allergies, apparently) as autism. People are pretty literal.

So that’s not a hairpiece Sonequa is wearing? I dig the shorter natural, but maybe she was just waiting till after the show was successful to take the plunge. In summary, I like her hair in the FB live video.

For a show that that didn’t preach, its funny how TOS had an episode about space hippies.

That episode was complete &@%$, and didn’t work (real hippies, if brought forward in time to the future of Star Trek, would marvel at how far Earth’s come, how it’s part of a multi-species Federation, and then after seeing that and observing Severin & company, would denounce them as fakes and tell them to &!@# off really, really hard.)