That headline might as well read, “Suprise: That Khan podcast thing was actually in production.”

I would appreciate an explanation as to what solarpunk is.

I wonder if our boi Ash Tyler had something to do with that when he covered up what happened to Discovery (and, I guess, to Leland). Maybe he decided to remove Georgiou from that whole situation and falsify a record saying she disappeared some time later.

That would make more sense than almost anything that happened in the film.

I also wonder if Ashy T. is still involved with S31 at this point - the man’s a Klingon, so he’s got the life span for it.

I think that if Ash Tyler was involved in S31, they might be a bit more subtle. Also, he probably wouldn’t have been on board with calling the director or handler or whatever Jamie Lee Curtis was supposed to be “Control.”

I don’t think we watched the same film.

Best boss I ever had!

Man, I miss Swear Trek.

I agonized over that choice.

No, that’s a whole other board.

You don’t have to play the good guys for the system to work, the same system is used for Dune - Adventures in the Imperium, and that’s a setting about as morally grey as it gets. Even with Star Trek Adventures, there is the Klingon Core Rulebook if you want to be a bit more rowdy than your typical Starfleet officers. The Operations Division sourcebook has suggestions for playing as Section 31 as well.

Lack of time is definitely the enemy of table top gaming. I feel very fortunate that I’ve managed to have an ongoing [mostly] weekly STA game for two and half years now.

deleted by creator

If you’re paying, you can spell his name any way you like.

My excitement at having Paul Giamatti in Trek is significantly tempered by the idea that he’s going to be the season villain for “Starfleet Academy”. Unless he’s going to be the hard ass dean of the Academy that doesn’t want to put up Tilly’s students putting Orion pheromones in the environmental system, and kidnapping the Klingon Military Academy’s targ mascot before the big game, I’m not interested in a villain.

So did ‘Farscape’.

Not surprised there wasn’t a close-up on that one; I wouldn’t have recalled that Janeway has a microscope in her ready room.

I think Burnham was referencing Book, not Tyler, when she said she knows what it’s like to lose someone but got him back.

I suppose you could interpret it that way, but I just don’t see it myself.

Book died during the final events of 10C, but they magically zapped him back into existence, if I recall correctly.

Book didn’t die, he was transporting out, and the 10C were able to capture his transporter pattern, and then later resolve it.

Odo definitely identifies as male.

And yes.

He insisted that even though he is gay, the Sulu he portrayed is straight.

“Unfortunately, it’s a twisting of Gene’s creation, to which he put in so much thought. I think it’s really unfortunate.”

Takei was not into it, but I do feel like he was overselling just how much thought Roddenberry put into the side characters in Trek. Sulu didn’t even get a given name until “The Voyage Home”, a film Roddenberry had nothing to do with.

(In Generations, Sulu is married and has a daughter, Demora, who helmed the Enterprise-B.)

Demora is Sulu’s daughter, but there’s no mention that Sulu was married, or if he was that it was to a woman.

(and Cho himself is cool being a straight Korean playing a gay Japanese)

Funny you mention the character’s nationality, considering that Roddenberry envisioned Sulu as some pan-Asian character on indeterminate nationality. Sulu is not a Japanese name, and Roddenberry chose to name the character after the Sulu sea of the coast of the Philippians.

Please don’t assume that I thought otherwise just because I didn’t explicitly mention every potentiality in that one post.

That was not my assumption. I just can’t think of any reason to assume that Sulu is not bi or pan, given what we know about the various iterations of the character.

Who said anything about revenge?

Ah, well that question has been answered by others and myself elsewhere in this thread. Sorry for assuming that you might have checked to see if your question was already answered before asking it.

But hey, just for you, I’ll repost what I’ve already said:

Because the police enforce the laws of the state, often with violence. If the law dictates that a person being open about their identity is illegal regardless of the fact their identity harms no one, and everyone involved in their actions consents, than it is the responsibility of the cops to oppress them. One year the cops might march alongside people at pride, and then the laws might change and they’ll be there to bust heads of anyone who shows up the next year. 
 
And yeah, there no doubt exist LGBTQ+ cops, or cops whose friends and/or family whom they love are LGBTQ+, but so long as they wear the uniform they represent an organization used to oppress marginalized and minority communities. 
 
Fundamentally, pride is not just a party, it is a protest.