Should I continue to watch Star Trek Discovery?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moses69
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
@Gertabelle, I prefer the late Roger Delgado and Anthony Ainley’s portrayals of The Master.

The writers ruin shows like Star Trek and Doctor Who when they go messing with genders.
 
40.png
Wozza:
Dna from a gay person will be able to activate the trans dimensional drive? That’s not possible. I think you are being told lies.
The gay guy injected himself with the DNA of a space dwelling creature that was previously used to activate the drive but was dying as a result. I didn’t say it was because he had gay DNA that only he could activate the drive.
My bad. It’s transgender dna that won’t work. Something to do with the flux capacity of the ion drive capacitor. See the owners manual for further details.
 
The Doctor isn’t human. It’s not comparable to transgenderism. Each incarnation of the Doctor is a completely new person in many respects. Remember when the Tenth Doctor (Tenant) was dealing with this? “I die and a new man walks away” (or something close to that).
 
Obviously he isn’t human, but it’s a tv show written by humans and watched by humans in a society which is trying to make transgenderism acceptable and normal.
 
Obviously he isn’t human, but it’s a tv show written by humans and watched by humans in a society which is trying to make transgenderism acceptable and normal.
From what I know about the change, it was a case of “We haven’t had a female doctor and some of our fans, importantly the female ones, would like to see one finally.” Not a support of transgenderism.
 
Yeah, as a man, the Doctor was a man. As a woman, the Doctor is a woman. There’s no fake dress up here…no affectations. The Time Lord “within”, if you will, is neither male nor female in my opinion…each incarnation has its own set of characteristics. The current incarnation happens to be female. After a dozen men being cast to play the role over the past 55 years, BBC felt it was time to cast a woman.
 
Last edited:
It’s a film.

Do you turn off the movie because someone kills another person? If you stopped watching things because characters did immoral things, you’d pretty much have to entirely stop watching any movies or shows or even reading any books - heck, you’d even have to stop reading the Bible if that was the case…
 
Last edited:
. And when religion is featured it’s spiritism/mysticism.
The creator of Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry, was a self described “humanist” who held a sort of nonreligious, spiritual, deist/theist view of God.

From his wiki article:

"Roddenberry was raised a Southern Baptist; however, as an adult, he rejected religion, and considered himself a humanist. He began questioning religion around the age of 14, and came to the conclusion that it was “nonsense”. As a child, he served in the choir at his local church, but often substituted lyrics as he sang hymns. Early in his writing career, he received an award from the American Baptist Convention for “skillfully writing Christian truth and the application of Christian principles into commercial, dramatic TV scripts”.

For several years, he corresponded with John M. Gunn of the National Council of Churches regarding the application of Christian teachings in television series. However, Gunn stopped replying after Roddenberry wrote in a letter: “But you must understand that I am a complete pagan, and consume enormous amounts of bread, having found the Word more spice than nourishment, so I am interested in a statement couched in dollars and cents of what this means to the Roddenberry treasury.”

Roddenberry said of Christianity, “How can I take seriously a God-image that requires that I prostrate myself every seven days and praise it? That sounds to me like a very insecure personality.” At one point, he worked a similar opinion, which was to have been stated by a Vulcan, into the plot for Star Trek: The God Thing . Before his death, Roddenberry became close friends with philosopher Charles Musès, who said that Roddenberry’s views were “a far cry from atheism”. Roddenberry explained his position thusly: “It’s not true that I don’t believe in God. I believe in a kind of God. It’s just not other people’s God. I reject religion. I accept the notion of God.”

He had an ongoing interest in other people’s experiences with religion, and called Catholicism "a very beautiful religion. An art form." However, he said that he dismissed all organized religions, saying that for the most part, they acted like a “substitute brain… and a very malfunctioning one”. Roddenberry was also critical of how the public looked at certain religions, noting that when the King David Hotel bombing took place in 1946, the American public accepted it as the action of freedom fighters, whereas a car bombing by a Muslim in Beirut is condemned as a terrorist act. While he agreed that both parties were wrong in their use of violence, he said that the actions of both were undertaken because of their strong religious beliefs."
 
Last edited:
40.png
greenrangerx:
Obviously he isn’t human, but it’s a tv show written by humans and watched by humans in a society which is trying to make transgenderism acceptable and normal.
From what I know about the change, it was a case of “We haven’t had a female doctor and some of our fans, importantly the female ones, would like to see one finally.” Not a support of transgenderism.
It’s Tom Baker’s fault. He started the rumor that the 5th Doctor might be female.

I don’t like the Doctor being female.
 
The 4th and 5th Doctors had 3 Companions at one time (Tegan, Nyssa and Adric). We aren’t counting the 1st Doctor since his first Companion was his granddaughter, Susan. Then Barbara and Ian, Susan’s teachers, joined them.
 
Last edited:
Same here. I remember when the Bakers (Tom and Colin) first came here. My mother and I were in that same location a year later. (She’s not a Whovian but thanks to moi, knew about the show.) Even she agreed the “magic” of the TARDIS could still be felt.

Have you ever been inside the TARDIS? Now THAT is a thrill!
 
It’s a film.

Do you turn off the movie because someone kills another person? If you stopped watching things because characters did immoral things, you’d pretty much have to entirely stop watching any movies or shows or even reading any books - heck, you’d even have to stop reading the Bible if that was the case…
A weak and unconvincing analogy.

Homosexuality is injected into stories - sometimes quite clumsily - and the writers and producers are conscious that they are promoting its moral acceptance in society and the related LGBT politics. Not believing this is denial and severe wishful thinking. There is an aim in it and it is unbearably obvious that there is an aim in it. This isn’t the same as shows where battle and some violence is naturally Incorporated into the show because it’s part of the setting… i.e. somebody is fighting somebody for reasons, etc. There isn’t a political and social message being underhandedly thrown at the audience when people are fighting Romulans or Daleks.

This isn’t something that is new with Star Trek. The show has promoted secular thought from its very beginnings (the pilot episode of the original Star Trek includes aliens that blow off hell as “a childhood fantasy” for the audience in the 1960s watching it). It has always subtly promoted secular liberal thought, though the new series it is less veiled and more obvious. The characters are also noticeably less emotionally mature than the characters in previous series, and I have watched all of them in the past.
 
Last edited:
Even if all that is true, who cares? Why can’t a well formed adult appreciate something as entertainment while not buying into whatever the political or social subtext is?
 
It would be wrong to portray homosexuality as right or good,. But that is not the same thing as portraying a character as a hero who is also gay.
This. So much this. We must fight the notion that homosexuality defines a person. Sexuality is merely a trait of a person, and no where near the sum of an identity. Identity theorists want us to define people by narrowly sliced traits, but that is not what we as a people of faith do!
 
What’s to stop you? Nothing, of course.

But I think it smacks a little bit of dependency that a person is attached enough to a TV show that the writers can do almost whatever they want, and because the show is a favorite from childhood, they’re guaranteed to have people tune in. At some point you have to realize that the magic of the story is gone and that you’re not really missing out on much by finding something else to do. And really, there are thousands or really hundreds of thousands and millions of things that you could otherwise be doing.

It is ultimately the brand itself that is making the new Star Trek able to float. Apart from the “Star Trek” logo, it’s a mediocre show with stunning visuals and motions thanks to the artists.
 
I’ve never watched Star Trek and don’t care about it one way or another. I’m just responding to the notion that if a show or movie portrays something immoral we’re obliged to stop watching it.
 
never watched Star Trek and don’t care about it one way or another. I’m just responding to the notion that if a show or movie portrays something immoral we’re obliged to stop watching it
Exactly the same as me - never watched Star Trek, never was a fan. Thought the episodes my dad watched in the 90s were stupid…

But I had to give my (name removed by moderator)ut as well that I think it’s ridiculous to stop consuming an art/entertainment medium simply because it depicts gravely sinful or immoral things.

What about films that contain romance and sex? Are those subtle brainwashing too?

I’m sorry @TK421 - I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not buyin what you’re sellin.
 
But I had to give my (name removed by moderator)ut as well that I think it’s ridiculous to stop consuming an art/entertainment medium simply because it depicts gravely sinful or immoral things.
Not just because it depicts sinful things, but because it portrays them without consequence and as normal behavior.
 
Do you think poison works equally well on everyone? What might make a child sick could be safely consumed by an adult.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top