communications relay login

Sonequa Martin-Green doesn't know Trek Trivia

Talking to British press The Independent, Sonequa promotes herself as the first Black Actor in Star Trek.

By Three of Seven Tue 19 Sep, 2017 10:57 PM
Sonequa was speaking with British press, The Independent over on this page, with minimal fact checking done by herself, and the press company. She stated to the outlet that "So having me as the first black lead of a Star Trek, just blasts that into a million pieces.".

Name:  Untitled-1.png
Views: 246
Size:  87.6 KBNow Star Trek fans must remember good old Uhura as a lead character, by the definition of being the main cast, who is black and female. Let us also not forget, Sisko, who played a lead role in Deep Space 9, as commander of the station. The casting of Star Trek has always been quite diverse, speaking from a casting stand point, but it has also been diverse in the aliens it has created over the years too.

Star Trek has often run on having multiple lead characters, often dedicating an episode to their story. While the captain can be central to many plots, they have always been part of the overall main crew, who are the lead character(s). Even if we do only look at captains, Sisko is still the first to hold the title, if it's a title worth holding. Skin colour should never be a factor in someone acting ability, or even ability.

But if people, like Sonequa, want to make bold claims, they should be doing some amount of research before stating something, because this is another incident that will stick in the minds of Star Trek fans.

This is another crazy comment to come from the cast of Discovery, who are arguably showing real fans, that they don't care for the past history of the series. I had over the months, been hoping for Discovery to actually be a good Star Trek show, but the more the cast speak, and scrub history from the series, the less interested I am.

Discovery is coming out on September 25th, that's if you want to watch it, Jason Isaacs dares you not to if you are a fan.

WRITTEN & EDITED BY Three of Seven - rena.hobden@ufplanets.com
21 Comments
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 11:03 PM
A Star Trek lead that doesn't care enough about the franchise to even learn who has been in it. Sad.
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 11:47 PM
A Star Trek lead that doesn't care enough about the franchise to even learn who has been in it. Sad.
Sad, maybe, but a problem? Hardly.

At this point, I think that people are just latching on to whatever they can to hate on the new series without even giving it a chance, and to be honest, they've done this EVERY time a new Star Trek series has come about going all the way back to the launch of TNG, always saying that it won't live up to what came before, and in so doing, set it up for failure.

Sure, DS9 started rough but in time did a lot more for the franchise than any of the other series (in terms of lore, character development, etc. Hell, what we as fans see as Klingons today we owe to DS9 and its development of Worf.), and Voyager was 'meh' but it wasn't terrible. Enterprise was mismanaged and its final season was criminally underrated and the finale was just criminal, but that wasn't the series' fault.

Sure, CBS has done some highly questionable and unpopular things in the last few years (IE Axanar to name a big one), but if we want to continue getting Star Trek at all, at least some leway should be given.

People who throw around negativity for negativity's sake "Are the reason we can't have nice things." If you want a good example, look at Mass Effect Andromeda: Good game, medocure story, and flaws that were eventually fixed, but the massive backlash has all but killed the franchise for everyone.
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 6:19 AM
Sad, maybe, but a problem? Hardly.

At this point, I think that people are just latching on to whatever they can to hate on the new series without even giving it a chance, and to be honest, they've done this EVERY time a new Star Trek series has come about going all the way back to the launch of TNG, always saying that it won't live up to what came before, and in so doing, set it up for failure.

Sure, DS9 started rough but in time did a lot more for the franchise than any of the other series (in terms of lore, character development, etc. Hell, what we as fans see as Klingons today we owe to DS9 and its development of Worf.), and Voyager was 'meh' but it wasn't terrible. Enterprise was mismanaged and its final season was criminally underrated and the finale was just criminal, but that wasn't the series' fault.

Sure, CBS has done some highly questionable and unpopular things in the last few years (IE Axanar to name a big one), but if we want to continue getting Star Trek at all, at least some leway should be given.

People who throw around negativity for negativity's sake "Are the reason we can't have nice things." If you want a good example, look at Mass Effect Andromeda: Good game, medocure story, and flaws that were eventually fixed, but the massive backlash has all but killed the franchise for everyone.
Agreed.

I have a friend who refused to watch TNG at first, and then constantly came up with various arguments about how TOS was better. She's done the same for every incarnation of the franchise since then, refusing to enjoy them because she thinks they take something away from Shatner-Trek. To this day she hasn't seen any of the reboot movies, her loss!

Personally I've yet to meet a Trek I didn't like so I will be avidly watching Discovery next week.

See you around the galaxy!
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 7:06 AM
But..but Worf is a Klingon, right? Or maybe.. Sonequa Martin-Green is acting so hard that she actually believes she's from discovery's rebooted universe where KirK+Picard+Sisko and what not don't exist? Now it would make sense to claim she was the first african american in Star Trek!! Facepalm
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 11:57 AM
People who throw around negativity for negativity's sake "Are the reason we can't have nice things." If you want a good example, look at Mass Effect Andromeda: Good game, medocure story, and flaws that were eventually fixed, but the massive backlash has all but killed the franchise for everyone.
Andromeda is not a good example, its launch was a disaster and the negative criticism it got was mostly warranted, you can't expect people to accept "my face is tired" and other examples of awful quality out of fear that the franchise might get canned. People should voice their opinions, negative ones should be welcomed and adjustments made if something really dumb is said or added to something. A lot of the backlash Andromeda got wasn't negativity for negativity sake, it was because it was released in an exceptionally poor state.

If people want nice things, they need to stand up to companies and tell them when things are wrong, you should never be scared to voice a negative opinion of something. What sort of a world would that be? Think of all the awful games we would have if no one said anything bad about big publishers putting out unfinished games.

The worse part is, if Discovery does flop, people will point at those who said negative things about it and say "It's their fault it flopped!" rather than pointing the finger at the studio or the cast. It's not the fault of people having negative opinions though, it's the fault of the studio and those involved in the production. It's like the newest Ghostbusters film, people blamed it being a flop because of negative views and sexism, rather than looking at the film itself in an objective manner.
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 1:05 PM
Sad, maybe, but a problem? Hardly.

At this point, I think that people are just latching on to whatever they can to hate on the new series without even giving it a chance, and to be honest, they've done this EVERY time a new Star Trek series has come about going all the way back to the launch of TNG, always saying that it won't live up to what came before, and in so doing, set it up for failure.
My fear is that this lack of concern for the legacy of the Star Trek franchise by the lead actress is something that will be reflected in the entire production.

The fact that a lead in a Star Trek show doesn't even know the very basics about the franchise's past seems to me to indicate one of two things. Either she didn't care enough to learn, or the production staff didn't think it was important that she know and didn't tell her to learn. If she willfully didn't try to learn even a little about the enormous pop culture icon she was going to be part of, then it reflects poorly on her as an actor. If the production staff decided that it wasn't important for the actors to know anything about the franchise before making their addition to it, then it reflects poorly on the entire production.
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 1:40 PM
To be fair, did Patrick Stewart know much about Star Trek when he signed on?

I'll give Discovery a shot because I like Star Trek. Yet, I agree, that it's not my job to be entertained, and my love of things Trek does not mean I should be forced to sit through a terrible presentation (not that I expect it).
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 1:47 PM
How in the hell do you screw that up
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 2:46 PM
Here's what I've learnt about STD :

I. It's a prequel+reboot Cry
II. It portraits out of place technology that isn't appropriate for the T0S era Suspicious
III. Awkward Klingons Sick
IV. New characters suddenly being related to famous characters like spock in a hilarious attempt to win over the hardcore Trek crowd, I suppose?? Ferengi Wink
V. Actors do not care if we get STD or not (Isaacs) Facepalm

and now Martin-Green believing she was the first african american in star trek.. Unamused

Sorry, but this sounds all wrong to me..
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 5:34 PM
The game is extremely boring with your repetitive missions; the premise of the story was cool, but the execution was terrible; Companions are bland; characters look goofy af. The harsh critisism that Andromeda recieved was to me, fully justified.
While you make valid points, most I agree with, I still have to disagree with you with it being fully justified.

90% of the criticism was pinpoint focused on the animations and some gameplay glitches, and the internet and some publications railed on the game for months, over an issue that A) Could (and was for the most part) be fixed B) didn't effect the gameplay all that much.

I'm all for criticism, but it should be constructive, and the level of hate and vitriol it got constantly after its launch was not justified, and that, 'is why we can't have nice things', IE story content DLC I was waiting for.
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 5:42 PM
This reminds me a bit of when Steam thought that selling mods on the workshop was a great idea - and then started with an Elder Scrolls game, one of the most well-established modding scenes known to PC at present. Not the best target audience to try and enter the market at.

The fact that the lead actress clearly has no idea of the MASSIVE following Star Trek has, nor quite how in-depth a lot of fans go with regards to continuity (across series, episodes etc.) makes me worried about how much the rest of the cast care. And if the cast don't care, why should they do their best to perform?
Wed 08 Nov, 2017 8:05 PM
I highly dislike the show. Gave up after episode 2.
Wed 29 Nov, 2017 6:58 AM
I can't have an opinion yet. I spend my extra cash on games, not on streaming what use to be a local network. I will wait a season or two, if it gets that far, then binge watch it during a 7 day free trial of CBS's "I'm a big boy like Netflix now" subscription. Smile
Wed 29 Nov, 2017 4:25 PM
The discussion here got me to click and read the relatively short article, and wow. It's not even some sort of minutia about Star Trek, this isn't "Trek Trivia". Trek Trivia are things we'd need to refer to Memory Alpha to double-check, not something you'd know by literally spending 5 seconds to just scroll through the Star Trek entry on wikipedia - where Avery Brooks has his face plastered as being the lead of DS9.

It's a really staggering amount of ignorant self-absorption to claim to be the first black lead in Star Trek.
It'd be like a lady publicly claiming to be the first woman to make a medical breakthrough.
Sat 02 Dec, 2017 10:10 PM
The first thing that came to mind after reading her quote was "Has she seen Star Trek before?"

Like COME ON; there have been several black characters in important Star Trek roles already.

Nichelle Nichols as Nyota Uhura from The Original Series.
Michael Dorn as Worf, son of Mogh from The Next Geneartion and Deep Space 9.
Woopi Goldberg as Guinan from The Next Generation.
Avery Brooks as Benjamin Sisko from Deep Space 9.
Tim Russ as Tuvok from Voyager.
Zoe Saldana as Nyota Uhura from the Reboot Series.
Idris Elba as Balthazar Edison / Krall from the Reboot Series movie Star Trek Beyond.

That's 7 people in major roles already in the above list and I know I've missed practically all of the minor characters.
Sat 02 Dec, 2017 10:52 PM
Since my last post didn't stay on topic, here's my two-cents:

Who cares?

So what if she doesn't know Trek Trivia or if she hasn't seen Star Trek? It shouldn't matter either way. She's a talented actress who for the most part is doing a great job on Discovery.
Sat 02 Dec, 2017 11:14 PM
So what if she doesn't know Trek Trivia or if she hasn't seen Star Trek? It shouldn't matter either way. She's a talented actress who for the most part is doing a great job on Discovery.
No argument about her acting skills. I think she's doing a great job with her role in Discovery.

I just think that if an actor is going to take on a role which has a large universe already created should take some time to get to know that as well. It would be a bit like an actor commenting that they don't know what a lightsaber is when they are playing a Jedi in Star Wars. Just as that weapon is an identifying statement for Star Wars, the diversity of the characters is an identifier for Star Trek.
Sat 02 Dec, 2017 11:23 PM
Do you think Sir Alec Guinness knew what a Lightsaber was when he was cast as a Jedi in Star Wars?

Or do you think Leonard Nimoy knew what the Vulcan hand-gesture was for "Live Long and Prosper"? (Funny story: He did, as its similar to a gesture a Rabbi makes during Jewish religious ceremonies, and it was Nimoy's suggestion that gave birth to Live Long and Prosper )

I ask those things because when it comes down to it, It doesn't matter. Sonequa isn't a Trekkie, so what, it's not a pre-requisite for the role. She's a professional actor. She prepared for her role by either studying the source material on her own time and/or through background info given to her by the writing staff.
Sat 02 Dec, 2017 11:54 PM
Do you think Sir Alec Guinness knew what a Lightsaber was when he was cast as a Jedi in Star Wars?

Or do you think Leonard Nimoy knew what the Vulcan hand-gesture was for "Live Long and Prosper"? (Funny story: He did, as its similar to a gesture a Rabbi makes during Jewish religious ceremonies, and it was Nimoy's suggestion that gave birth to Live Long and Prosper )

I ask those things because when it comes down to it, It doesn't matter. Sonequa isn't a Trekkie, so what, it's not a pre-requisite for the role. She's a professional actor. She prepared for her role by either studying the source material on her own time and/or through background info given to her by the writing staff.
Considering that was the first Star Wars ever, probably not.

Sonequa may not be a Trekkie, but there's a difference between knowing the minutia of Trek that we do and knowing that there were black people on the show before her. The worst part isn't even the ignorance, it's the arrogance of her assumption that she's something new and special in Trek because of her race.
Sun 03 Dec, 2017 1:25 AM
And I ask again: Why does that matter?

It doesn't, at the end of the day. Not being a Trekkie, or having a level of knowledge that would mean she can answer trivia questions, should not and cannot have any effect on her ability to star on Star Trek. Like I said, she's a professional actress who isn't a Trekkie, she has been given enough background information requisite to play her role. She's doing (and doing well) the job she was cast for.

Getting angry or upset over her inability for being able to answer trivia on a show she stars in is, quite frankly, petty? As far as not knowing that there have been several notable African-American roles in Star Trek, I say this: She's human, she can't know everything, and the fact she doesn't know is trivial.

Getting bent out of shape on this is not worth our time. There are far more important things in the world that are more deserving of said time.
Mon 04 Dec, 2017 3:43 PM
It's not about "Star Trek trivia".

This doesn't require even a passing familiarity with the franchise, nor even a cursory bit of research. Literally 5 seconds just scrolling down the wikipedia article without even reading anything will reveal the black man plastered among the list of captains helming the various series.

It's a self-aggrandizing claim based on wilful ignorance.

"They're a ♥♥♥♥ but a great actor" is a perfectly valid view (and one applicable to a lot of A-list celebrities), and being a great actor doesn't excuse being a ♥♥♥♥. Given the current political climate I take more issue with people trying to excuse or dismiss it then her making the claim or how it reflects on her character, because there's way too much of that happening with much greater issues.

Someone can make a ton of medical breakthroughs that save millions of people, but still be a monster because they tortured and killed hundreds of thousands to achieve those breakthroughs.

So let's turn the question to those who keep making excuses on her behalf: Does it matter that she's self-absorbed? Do you need the actress to be a saint to enjoy her acting?