I think that was kind of the point. These are professional women who have some connection with but no official tie to Trek. Aliza Pearl (to the right of McFadden) does Trek-themed improve and a Trek-themed show on Geek & Sundry. McFadden was supposed to be the Trek representative and lynchpin of the panel.
Rather disappointing to hear how regressive affairs still are nowadays. Especially in SF, like Star Trek where part of it's appeal is the optimism. Similarly in the UK, with Doctor Who, announcing the 13th Doctor as a woman. Some seem mortally offended by the very idea. Far more than simply feel the choice is too old or too young. On screen representation is important to been seen, and inspire as broad a section of humanity as possible. You can already hear/imagine the complaints if half of Discovery episodes were to be directed by women. I mean single digit female directors in over fifty years of television. Representation behind the camera is at least as important for inspiration. Recently saw a Doctor Who SDCC panel, and realised half were straight and half were gay. It's depressing that that needs to be noticed, mentioned and applauded.
Robin Hislop considering we had a female captain for 7 years in voyager dr who is very very late. Also, gene Roddenberry never brought any attention to diversity in characters. It's all about the story and their nationality, colour or sexual preference were totally moot.
Hanniffy Dinn Are you serious ... TOS was all about diversity. You had a black bridge officer, you had a Russian bridge officer, which at the time was pretty damn diverse. The issue at the moment is the anti PC brigade picking up on everything. Just enjoy films/TV for what they are, it doesn't matter how diverse (or not) they are. It's pathetic.
Yes, but the diversity was assumed they didn't bang one about it or mention it in anyway. The fact a bridge officer was black was moot. The whole point in the future we get over this bullshit about being black or different and shit. You need to watch TOS again, they literally never mention any diversity. it's all just normal.
They probably won't mention it in Discovery either, it is the marketing and media people who make a big deal out of it (because that nonsense generates clicks and clicks are ad-revenue) while it really isn't a big deal at all, it is just normal. And with all the nonsense since Gamergate, SJWs, Political Correctness fatigue and all the way to Trump, some people are just way oversensitive at the moment in ALL directions... i'd just wish all these screaming idiots would shut up for a while.
People just react to what they're not used to, it's very simple. I hear so much bitching and moaning over women are not used like men in movies and series, but look back and what time the shows and movies were made, it's a slow progression, and if you want more female directors, and stronger female leads, then fucking become a director, writer, actress and what not.
I just partly get it. She complains about women not having highly interlectual talks with her son, but emotional talks. Well, I know lot of you wont like it, but this is a more typical distribution in human nature. Women are caused through biology which cant be negotiated (Men and Women are different, just watch at them) to be more likely emotional. If you would ask women who has a stronger bonding, Men or Women, I bet almoast all women will state that women have a hugely stronge bonding to their children. And I would say "Yes its true". But you know what ? That bondung is cause through biology and emotianal relationship to it. So I dont get it why women tend to not like being the "emotional" part, because its at least as important as having interlectual talks. If people would not be influenced by emotionsand stuff, but only have highly interlectual "inputs" , people would be more like machines than humans. So dont complain about having such a important role, be thankfull and glad you got it. And at all feminists: Dont try to be something, you are not. Nature and evoloution have thought of something making man and woman differntly in visuals, in sexuality and in hormons that are mostly responsible for being either emotional like either Agressive, confronting like malse or either not like women
Thanks for the upload! Love Gates, got to meet her this past March, she was a class act! :)
Thanks for taking this and coming to the panel!
Another great video. Thanks for posting this one.
Insightful panel, strong message, Gates also a strong rolemodel. The end of this talk makes me way more optimistic than reality seems sometimes.
But who are these people???
Thanks for this one too.
thank you :-)
Good panel. I'm surprised Ms McFadden was the only cast member.
Apart from Gates I don't know any of these women from Star Trek and I've watched a lot of Star Trek.
I think that was kind of the point. These are professional women who have some connection with but no official tie to Trek. Aliza Pearl (to the right of McFadden) does Trek-themed improve and a Trek-themed show on Geek & Sundry. McFadden was supposed to be the Trek representative and lynchpin of the panel.
Who are the other four women. I know gate...i know nothing about the other four
None of them are on the show. They are just random people barely linked to it.
Dr. Kayla Iacovino is an editor for trekmovie.com for example.
Rather disappointing to hear how regressive affairs still are nowadays. Especially in SF, like Star Trek where part of it's appeal is the optimism. Similarly in the UK, with Doctor Who, announcing the 13th Doctor as a woman. Some seem mortally offended by the very idea. Far more than simply feel the choice is too old or too young. On screen representation is important to been seen, and inspire as broad a section of humanity as possible.
You can already hear/imagine the complaints if half of Discovery episodes were to be directed by women. I mean single digit female directors in over fifty years of television. Representation behind the camera is at least as important for inspiration. Recently saw a Doctor Who SDCC panel, and realised half were straight and half were gay. It's depressing that that needs to be noticed, mentioned and applauded.
Robin Hislop considering we had a female captain for 7 years in voyager dr who is very very late. Also, gene Roddenberry never brought any attention to diversity in characters. It's all about the story and their nationality, colour or sexual preference were totally moot.
Hanniffy Dinn Are you serious ... TOS was all about diversity. You had a black bridge officer, you had a Russian bridge officer, which at the time was pretty damn diverse. The issue at the moment is the anti PC brigade picking up on everything. Just enjoy films/TV for what they are, it doesn't matter how diverse (or not) they are. It's pathetic.
BANG ON. Well done sir for hitting the nail on the head.
Yes, but the diversity was assumed they didn't bang one about it or mention it in anyway. The fact a bridge officer was black was moot. The whole point in the future we get over this bullshit about being black or different and shit.
You need to watch TOS again, they literally never mention any diversity. it's all just normal.
They probably won't mention it in Discovery either, it is the marketing and media people who make a big deal out of it (because that nonsense generates clicks and clicks are ad-revenue) while it really isn't a big deal at all, it is just normal.
And with all the nonsense since Gamergate, SJWs, Political Correctness fatigue and all the way to Trump, some people are just way oversensitive at the moment in ALL directions... i'd just wish all these screaming idiots would shut up for a while.
People tend to forget that there were plenty of female admirals in TNG etc
Oh my gosh what does this have to do with Star Trek?
People just react to what they're not used to, it's very simple. I hear so much bitching and moaning over women are not used like men in movies and series, but look back and what time the shows and movies were made, it's a slow progression, and if you want more female directors, and stronger female leads, then fucking become a director, writer, actress and what not.
You sound pretty stupid
I just partly get it. She complains about women not having highly interlectual talks with her son, but emotional talks. Well, I know lot of you wont like it, but this is a more typical distribution in human nature. Women are caused through biology which cant be negotiated (Men and Women are different, just watch at them) to be more likely emotional. If you would ask women who has a stronger bonding, Men or Women, I bet almoast all women will state that women have a hugely stronge bonding to their children. And I would say "Yes its true". But you know what ? That bondung is cause through biology and emotianal relationship to it. So I dont get it why women tend to not like being the "emotional" part, because its at least as important as having interlectual talks. If people would not be influenced by emotionsand stuff, but only have highly interlectual "inputs" , people would be more like machines than humans. So dont complain about having such a important role, be thankfull and glad you got it. And at all feminists: Dont try to be something, you are not. Nature and evoloution have thought of something making man and woman differntly in visuals, in sexuality and in hormons that are mostly responsible for being either emotional like either Agressive, confronting like malse or either not like women
N Forcer my god man can you try not to eviscerate English?
What in all seven hells is your point with all this gibberish?
what the fuck are you trying to say lmao