Author Topic: Star Trek: Discovery  (Read 18902 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Eternally Learning

  • Master Mr. a.k.a. Methodical Loaf
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9207
  • Break a leg, badger!
    • Get Past The 140 Character Limit!
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #30 on: October 02, 2017, 07:23:02 PM »
"To have a woman with a male name, speaking of … how we see men and women in the future.”

Huh, so it's interesting and exciting and futuristic for a woman to have a man's name.  Yet I doubt if we'll see a man named Roxanne or Cassandra.

Well, I think it'd be interesting to have a future where the social boundaries between genders aren't so arbitrary and binary, so I guess a female having a male name might be an indication of that.  As for men having female names, I don't see why not, but it'd almost certainly be more socially distracting in this day and age than a female named Michael.

Offline tralfaz

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 86
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #31 on: October 03, 2017, 01:05:39 AM »
I guess I'd argue that a woman with a traditionally male name is almost so common that it goes practically unnoticed (see the names in earlier posts).  Funny how a woman with a man's name is a mild curiosity, yet  man with a woman's name is so controversial that it could offend the audience.

If they really wanted to make a social commentary, there it is.  A woman with a male characteristic is good,  a man with a female characteristic is bad.

Offline Eternally Learning

  • Master Mr. a.k.a. Methodical Loaf
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9207
  • Break a leg, badger!
    • Get Past The 140 Character Limit!
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #32 on: October 03, 2017, 01:54:13 AM »
I guess I'd argue that a woman with a traditionally male name is almost so common that it goes practically unnoticed (see the names in earlier posts).  Funny how a woman with a man's name is a mild curiosity, yet  man with a woman's name is so controversial that it could offend the audience.

If they really wanted to make a social commentary, there it is.  A woman with a male characteristic is good,  a man with a female characteristic is bad.

So common it goes unnoticed and yet a lot of people have made a point of noticing it and talking about it.  Also, there's practically no social commentary made that someone can't then say "yeah well, they could have gone further," so I'm not generally a fan of that line of thinking.  At any rate, it doesn't seem like it was intended to be some massive conversation starter and seems to be mostly a personal flourish of Brian Fuller's.

Offline michael0669

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 7
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #33 on: October 03, 2017, 02:11:47 AM »
I've met a handful of women with variants of this name (which also happens to be my given name, but I'm male...)

So far it's been two Michaelenes, one Michaela, and one Michael.  It's not exactly common for women yet, and may not ever be, but it's not unheard of, either.

On the other hand, hearing Stacey or Tracey used for a man's given name?  That still throws me.


Michael Burnham makes me wonder about the name choice. A male name, a female character. They touched on this in Ep 3. No clue seems to indicate why the male name. One of my coworkers worked on this series and I asked her. She either did not know or wasn't saying.

In the US anyway, its not uncommon for traditional male names to become more common female names; Tracy, Lesley, Vivian, Madison(son of Mad), etc.  So, maybe in the future, Michael will be a female name?  Misha already is and its just Russian for Mikey.

Offline John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7164
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #34 on: October 03, 2017, 02:13:17 AM »
This show is really good.

Offline mikeym

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #35 on: October 03, 2017, 08:15:19 AM »
Ok, apparently I'm having a way, way, way worse reaction to this show than most, but I'm loathing it. I can only name a couple of shows or films that I have found myself involuntarily laughing derisively at; one of them was Star Trek Discovery and it's happened in all 3 episodes so far; the other was the theatrical cut of Batman Vs Superman.

I really did want to like this series, I feel like we are well over due a good old dose of the Star Trek optimism, but that's nowhere to be found here.

So here are the main things that have annoyed me - in no order:

* The acting - it's occasionally good - I like Doug Jones and Jason Isaacs (Hello!) are always top notch - but almost everyone else has seemed to be seriously struggling to deliver their lines, and that's probably because of...
* The script - the dialogue is seriously turgid, and character and motivation seem often confused and inconsistent - seemingly to hit certain predetermined plot points.
* In the future people will be petty and squabblesome - this really kicked in in episode 3. It reminded me of the petty infighting in BSG, but at least there they had the excuse that half the crew were supposed to be Cylons.
* The tone - I have come away from the first 3 episodes with the strong impression that not only are they not interested in the tone of the previous Star Trek iterations but that they are actively opposed to it. They seem to have drawn from almost every SciFi genre from the last 20 years other than Star Trek.
* The Klingons - Oh... Dear... what on Earth were they thinking? I can only think that so much of the talent that went into decades of practical make-up on shows like Star Trek and Babylon 5 has drained away. For some reason I couldn't stop thinking of the "poo monster" at the end of altered states.
* The Science - science in Star Trek always took somewhat of a back seat to plot, but they at least knew when they needed to apply some handwavium to cover over the cracks - here they neither know the science or care about it. My favourites so far:

For episodes 2 and 3:
(click to show/hide)

Online Rai

  • PIZZASAURUS
  • Global Moderator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 7239
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #36 on: October 03, 2017, 08:27:07 AM »
* The acting - it's occasionally good - I like Doug Jones and Jason Isaacs (Hello!) are always top notch - but almost everyone else has seemed to be seriously struggling to deliver their lines, and that's probably because of...

Hmm, I see there is another member of the Church in the forum to hang out in the Sceptical Receptacle.

Offline mindme

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8868
    • http://www.yrad.com/cs
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #37 on: October 03, 2017, 08:37:29 AM »
It's a good point that some male names have become female names. However, it's pretty clear in Ep 3 that Michael is an odd name for a woman. The cadet mentions she is aware of only one woman to be named Michael.

I don't know if this was meant to make the MRA types extra super mad. I got the feeling from my coworker who worked on the series that maybe the Michael character was originally envisioned to be male but the people who took the reigns were like "mmmmm nnnnnnnnn no. This is going to a strong female lead series." "But the main character needs to be called Michael Burnham." "Yep, we can do that."

There's so much potential in a female character with a male name. It's a teaching moment "why do you even give a fuck? I mean, warp engines. Every race looks human. Yet you can't suspend disbelief over a woman named Michael?" It might be part of a mystery.




"Because the world needs more Mark Crislip."

Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast
Korean Podcast
Michael Goudeau, Vegas Comedy Entertainer Available for Trade Shows

Offline mikeym

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #38 on: October 03, 2017, 08:42:20 AM »
Hmm, I see there is another member of the Church in the forum to hang out in the Sceptical Receptacle.

When not on a Cruise.

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12162
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #39 on: October 03, 2017, 09:36:37 AM »
Ok, apparently I'm having a way, way, way worse reaction to this show than most, but I'm loathing it. I can only name a couple of shows or films that I have found myself involuntarily laughing derisively at; one of them was Star Trek Discovery and it's happened in all 3 episodes so far; the other was the theatrical cut of Batman Vs Superman.

I really did want to like this series, I feel like we are well over due a good old dose of the Star Trek optimism, but that's nowhere to be found here.

So here are the main things that have annoyed me - in no order:

* The acting - it's occasionally good - I like Doug Jones and Jason Isaacs (Hello!) are always top notch - but almost everyone else has seemed to be seriously struggling to deliver their lines, and that's probably because of...
* The script - the dialogue is seriously turgid, and character and motivation seem often confused and inconsistent - seemingly to hit certain predetermined plot points.
* In the future people will be petty and squabblesome - this really kicked in in episode 3. It reminded me of the petty infighting in BSG, but at least there they had the excuse that half the crew were supposed to be Cylons.
* The tone - I have come away from the first 3 episodes with the strong impression that not only are they not interested in the tone of the previous Star Trek iterations but that they are actively opposed to it. They seem to have drawn from almost every SciFi genre from the last 20 years other than Star Trek.
* The Klingons - Oh... Dear... what on Earth were they thinking? I can only think that so much of the talent that went into decades of practical make-up on shows like Star Trek and Babylon 5 has drained away. For some reason I couldn't stop thinking of the "poo monster" at the end of altered states.
* The Science - science in Star Trek always took somewhat of a back seat to plot, but they at least knew when they needed to apply some handwavium to cover over the cracks - here they neither know the science or care about it. My favourites so far:

For episodes 2 and 3:
(click to show/hide)

I can see that.  I don't really agree, as I am enjoying the show, but it does split from old Trek pretty violently.  It is like an ex-smoker in that regard.
Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

The world is on its elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds

Online Morvis13

  • Big Ol' Goober
  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 25713
  • Natural Source of Paranoia
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #40 on: October 03, 2017, 09:44:56 AM »
OMG i am totally in love with Cadet Sylvia Tilly. I would not kick her out of bed for eating cookies. Sure she talked a lot but man, has she got it.

If anyone needs me I'll be on holodeck 3.
Murphy's Law: Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
Morvis' Law: Anything that does go wrong is my fault.

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12162
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #41 on: October 03, 2017, 10:26:52 AM »
OMG i am totally in love with Cadet Sylvia Tilly. I would not kick her out of bed for eating cookies. Sure she talked a lot but man, has she got it.

If anyone needs me I'll be on holodeck 3.

Me too.  She is soooooo my type.
Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

The world is on its elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds

Online superdave

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6293
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #42 on: October 03, 2017, 11:43:29 AM »
science in star trek was never very good but it usually followed some sort of internal logic.
I disavow anyone in the movement involved in any illegal,unethical, sexist, or racist behavior. However, I don't have the energy or time to investigate each person and case, and a lack of individual disavowals for each incident should not be construed as condoning such behavior.

Online Morvis13

  • Big Ol' Goober
  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 25713
  • Natural Source of Paranoia
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #43 on: October 03, 2017, 12:45:56 PM »
science in star trek was never very good but it usually followed some sort of internal logic.

The breath sample lock is a joke.
Murphy's Law: Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
Morvis' Law: Anything that does go wrong is my fault.

Offline mindme

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8868
    • http://www.yrad.com/cs
Re: Star Trek: Discovery
« Reply #44 on: October 03, 2017, 01:22:28 PM »
"Because the world needs more Mark Crislip."

Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast
Korean Podcast
Michael Goudeau, Vegas Comedy Entertainer Available for Trade Shows