Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:

Total Found: 139 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 6
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Tue, Jan 24, 2017, 10:34am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S3: Captain's Holiday

Sorry just to clarify the 50/50 ratio was at a single convention.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Tue, Jan 24, 2017, 10:28am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S3: Captain's Holiday

Tara I was actually looking through Google to see if I could locate a stat detailing the ratio of male to female Trek fans and I had alot of trouble finding one. One article did mention a 50/50 ratio a while back, which I find amazing.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Tue, Jan 24, 2017, 6:09am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S3: Captain's Holiday

Tara, I'm surprised you forgot about Guinan. But then again she wasn't exactly a doer either - more a listener and dispenser of invaluable wisdom.

Shelby was also a pretty big omission given her centrality to what was likely the high point of all Trek.

But you'll get no argument from me in this department - the men definitely have the more action heavy, adventurous roles in Trek. Calling those roles "interesting", mind you, is a subjective judgement, but one I agree with generally.

If I may offer a partial defence on that latter point - Trek for most of its history and certainly in the STNG days, was basically a male interest. Not exclusively, but mostly. What do you suppose the ratio of male to female is on this board?

That being the case, there is a certain logic to emphasizing male characters for a male audience. If we were to take the number of "interesting" characters on STNG (Shelby, Yar, Garrett, Ro, Vash, Guinan) compared to the number of interesting male characters, would 20:1 be fair? Now how many male Trek fans do you suppose there were in 1987 relative to female fans? I'll make a supposition: that the ratio on the show gave female fans far more selection than their representation in the audience would have.

My supposition also assumes that 100% of the female audience identified with the Vash or Shelby archetypes, and not the Crusher or Troy ones. And for that matter, I also am assuming that 100% wanted to see themselves in the role the way you describe.

Anyway I think you're going to get your wish. Disney has clearly awakaned to the potential of a large female scifi audience and has clearly chosen to market its Star Wars property heavily to girls. They seem to be doing so with quite a powerful will. If that succeeds, others will definitely follow.





Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 1:14pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S1: Angel One

Robert, you make alot of good points. I do recall reading about an interview with Whoopie Goldberg where she made this comment to the effect of (paraphrasing) "Look Ma, there's a coloured woman on TV and she aib't no maid!"

One should not lose sight of how progressive Star Trek could be for its time. For a man born in the 1920's, Gene deserved much credit, even if he fell short sometimes.

As for STNG, I have to say that I didn't (and still don't) find much that is overtly sexist about it. Troi's inclusion (and her clothing) was no doubt partly to cater to prurient sentiments, but given that she sat to the Captain's left on the bridge (and given the apparent reverence shown to her role as counsellor and the time devoted to her character in season 1) I'd say that's a mixed bag at worst. Women were shown to have high ranks in the command staff (Chief medical officer, head of security, counsellor) and were not relegated to lowly roles. Tasha never wore a miniskirt, nor did Dr. Crusher.

Regarding Tasha crying - I hate to break it to you, but women do seem to cry more readily than men. That's been my experience anyway. In a 21st Century context, you may not like it or you may wish it weren't so, but it is. Now maybe that's a cultural thing that should resolve in a truly equal society - but maybe not. Believing the sexes to be equal is not the same as believing them to be *the same*, not in the 21st century or the 24th. Unlike in TOS the Next Gen era shows always espoused equality of the sexes period full stop even if some of the aesthetic choices could be taken as sexist from a certain point of view.

Actually one of the few things I enjoyed about this episode was Riker's scenes concerning the matriarchy. He isn't threatened by powerful women at all. I thought this was intriguing and speaks to how different Riker is than the typical alpha male womanizer. As I interpret it, Riker's attitude reflects a post feminist outlook. He doesn't feel threatened because the battle of the sexes was never a factor in his universe. His response is much like Uhura's to Lincoln's comment in the Savage Curtain. It's as if to say: "why would I be offended?" It is one of bemusement and curiosity. This is not personal to him.

Incidentally, I also find it amusing how many people take Riker to task for daring to have sex with a head of state. But maybe sex isn't such a big deal for 24th century humans? Maybe for Riker sex is no more a big deal than breaking bread? The idea that not just technology, but *people* could be differebt in the 24th century is one of those things STNG struggled with, isn't it?
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 11:50am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S4: Devil's Due

@Chrome

I don't object to a lighthearted comedy, just to the idiot plot. Outside of Q episodes, the established rules of the universe we are in should not be just casually hand waved away, conedy or not.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 11:47am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S4: Devil's Due

Chrome it's useless to speculate how Fajo obtained the Mona Lisa. But even if he stole it from a secure 24th century facility, that just makes him a clever thief. Fajo's kidnapping of Data was also clever, but didn't require him to employ any special technologies.

If Ardra can just cloak the Enterprise and disappear it with a "cheap copy" of a Romulan cloak - why don't Romulans just do it whenever they fight the Enterprise? If she can create forcefields on the bridge to swat away security, why doesn't everybody do that?
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 11:34am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S4: Devil's Due

And Chrome, you are describing the technologies of major galactic powers on their military vessels. This wasn't a cloaked Romulan military craft - they even note that Ardra's cloak was a poor copy of a Romulun version! This was just some random con artist. The idea of her being able to sand bag the Federation flagship is laughable.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 11:30am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S4: Devil's Due

@Chrome

The Mona Lisa is under tight security in Paris at *present*. Do you know what happened to it after the nuclear holocaust? :) Just saying it might have been misplaced some time in a couple centuries.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 11:25am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S6: Sacrifice of Angels

Dlpb, it was their wormhole! They constructed it. This fact was established right in season 1 in the very first episode.

That the aliens would be capable of destroying (or disappearing) a fleet passing through their wormhole is hardly shocking. It's actually kind of obvious when you stop and think about it.

This goes to Peter's earlier point about how everyone, including the Federation, had conveniently forgotten about the Prophets or written them off as some kind of quaint religious myth when in fact the truth was right there to be seen. The major powers arrogantly thought the wormhole was theirs to use as they saw fit - forgetting who built it and on whose suffrance they used it.

The solution in this episode kind of blindsides the viewer which is good as far as I am concerned.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 10:57am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S4: Devil's Due

Chrome, Fajo didn't have access to more powerful weapons than Starfleet. He had an illegal disruptor which killed its victims slowly - it was illegal because it was cruel, not because it was somehow advanced or technically sophisticated.

You are comparing stealing a painting with cloaking a starship and attempting to commandeer the Federatiom flagship?

To put this in perspective, it would be akin to a band of outlaw pirates looking to take over an American nuclear aircraft carrier. I don't care what resources they have - not gonna happen!

Ardra wasn't some weird alien like Kevin Uxbridge or the Q. She was a known con artist in the sector, which means she likely didn't have any magic alien tech that would justify anything she did. Picard literally just had to say "shields up" and the whole game should have been over!!

Peter yes I think you're correct in your assumption - so it's not Ardra's behaviour or motivation I am questioning.

By the way, I was thinking about the Prime Directive issues in this episode and why Picard didn't just leave when the hostages were released. Of course the answer is that Ardra had laid claim to the Enterprise and under Ventaxian law that made the Enterprise her property - hence the need for the trial to disprove her claim. Using similar logic to Justice could Picard have left without violating Ventaxian law and in effect, the Prime Directive? Then it amused me to imagine the Romulun Senate passing a law annexing Earth and Starfleet being forced to concede the point, lest it interfere with Romulun law :)
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 9:21am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S4: Devil's Due

As others have noted, this episode cheats, to the point where it is impossible to take it seriously. This flim flam lady can project forcefields onto another ship? She can disrupt all communications and cloak a Galaxy Class starship without anyone onboard realizing it?

The entire episode would have been over if Picard had just raised the damn shields or put a forcefield around this lady.

And don't get me started on Troi, who can't sense whether Ardra is lying or not because of her "focused mind". Uhhh huh. Way to earn your wage "counsellor".

By the way, what was Ardra's plan anyway? Say Picard lost the trial? How did she intend to take possession of a starship and its 1,000 crewmembers?

I wholeheartedly support the 1 star review. This episode is as fraudulent as its main antagonist.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Fri, Jan 20, 2017, 4:33pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S1: 11001001

Tara, there are many fantasies that regular people have that are exploitative, even evil if they were to be translated into real life. I think the observation is interesting (given the context of a supposedly evolved 24th century human being) but I am curious: what do you think this says about Picard and Riker, or men in general? It should be noted that Minuet was a fantasy designed by the Binars to distract Riker. In that she fulfilled her purpose.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Fri, Jan 20, 2017, 6:59am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S1: Angel One

Tara, I always found it ironic that in early episodes like The Cage and The Final Frontier in TOS, women are portrayed in positions of higher authority, whereas in the later episodes they revert back to more "traditional" roles as you describe.

I don't know what went on behind the scenes, but my guess is there was tension between Rodenberry's vision and what was commercially (and culturally) feasible at the time.

Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 2:04pm (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S5: The Darkness and the Light

N Kira and Nog are fictional characters, whereas DLPB is a real person, albeit an anonymous one. There is no question of "civility" towards a character in a TV show so your comparison is specious.

I didn't argue with DLPB because there was nothing to argue about. I don't agree with him but I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince someone that a fictional character I like isn't s "worthless pile of dung"

To address your last point, you have yet to respond to the fact that his "content and tone" in discussing Kira was more or less the same as it was when discussing Nog.

If I walk up to a black man and call him a demon, you might speculate that I'm a racist. If 5 minutes later I walk up to a white man and call him the same thing, the initial speculation becomes increasingly less likely.

I see people post like DLPB all the time re: male characters. It's probably just his style.

Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 12:34pm (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S5: The Darkness and the Light

N the fact that she was pregnant is superfluous to this argument.

He flippantly said he wishes a female character he doesn't like would be killed off. Then he made a similar comment about a male character.

Lots of people write nasty comments about fictional characters they hate, against both sexes.

You leaped to the conclusion that he hates Kira because she is a woman, and then leapt passed the conclusion that he's sexist to the conclusion that he is misogynist (hates women categorically) despite having additional evidence that he expresses similar hatred of male characters.

It's not "semantics". You're just flat out insulting people and name calling with no basis in fact.

I want you to see this and understand why I'm criticizing you. I want people to be more civil with one another and part of that is taking responsibility for the words we choose.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 12:08pm (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S5: The Darkness and the Light

Peter, since the poster went on to employ similar language to describe Nog, a male character, I think it more likely that it's just his style to make excessive comments about characters he doesn't like, as opposed to singling out female characters for abuse. If you have evidence that this poster has a pattern of denigrating female characters then that may change things.

Incidentally, I didn't claim the comments were not sexist, but in my view even the evidence for that is lacking, let alone for misogyny.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 11:25am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S5: The Darkness and the Light

"DLPB's specific dismissal of Kira as "irrational" and "could never control her emotions" (on top of "One thing could have saved this episode... Kira being killed by the assassin") is bathed in misogyny and uses the exact same tropes with which women have been delegitimized for decades/centuries - ie. They're emotional. They're irrational. "

Point one: you inferred that his comments pertaining to Kira must be indicative of an attitude against all women. In that inference you were engaging in motive speculation, a type of ad hominem attack. There is no such evidence that his views of Kirabcan be expanded to all women.

It is possible to think a female character is irrational and hysterical without believing all women are so.

Point two: even if someone genuinely thinks all women are irrational, this does not prove misogyny. Misogyny is defined as hatred of women, or a contempt of women so strong that it borders on hate.

Marc Lepine, the infamous Ecole Polytechnique shooter was probably a misogynist. The "nice guy" who can't get a date but rants and raves about the evils of "women today" and how they only want a-holes and not "nice guys" is probably a misogynist. The author of Malleus Maleficarum, the witch hunter's handbook, was probably a misogynist.

Your uncle Larry who thinks wonen are too emotional and are bad drivers isn't a misogynist - he's a sexist. Or if he is a misogynist, that prejudice is not what makes him so.

I find the word "sexism" adequate to describe garden variety male chauvinism and prejudice against women. I do not see any purpose in watering down and trivializing "misogyny" by applying the label to every prejudice aimed at women and supplanting the the well understood concept of sexism.

Moreover, claiming that someone is a misogynist is a very strong claim - like calling that person a bigot or a racist. You make such allegations, don't be surprised at the blowback.

Many people these days rail against "hate" and "vitriol" but seem blind to how their own choice of words feeds into this toxic cycle.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 10:48am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S5: The Darkness and the Light

Robert I have never in my life simultaneously loathed a politician and his critics with equal intensity. I feel like a political orphan. I want somebody to put Trump, Meryl Streep and all of the talking heads on CNN on a rocket ship and blast the lot of them into the sun.

I feel like the world has moved on and left me behind - and I'm only 36.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 8:51am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S5: The Darkness and the Light

The word mysoginist denotes a person who has great contempt or outright hatred of women as a group. It should not be confused with garden variety sexist or chauvinism, which merely connotes prejudice or bigotry.

N when you imply that someone hates women, that's a pretty serious allegation. I see no evidence of that on this thread. The allegation itself is a form of motive speculation and ad hominem attack - forms of argument banned on most civilized forums.

Instead of wondering why the people you personally insulted (without basis I might add) react angrily - you should consider your words more carefully next time. You should also ask yourself if throwing around words of that nature flippantly without proper thought ultimately devalues those words and makes them into a joke to be discounted or ignored.

Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 8:38am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S5: Silicon Avatar

"Kirk would have blowed it up real good, the first opportunity he got :-)"

He didn't blow up the Horta. And it killed many humans too.

As for the CE, I am with Picard and agree with his approach. Destroying the entity without at least attempting to communicate with it and exploring alternatives (such as offering it a less destructive alternative for feeding) would have been unworthy of a Starfleet captain, even for Kirk.

If communication was impossible or the entity proved intractable, the Enterprise would have destroyed it. But Marr denied them even the chance at a peaceful resolution.


Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Mon, Jan 16, 2017, 8:42am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S5: In Purgatory's Shadow

"Always wondered why they're opening up fluidic space when are still three quarters of the galaxy to be assimilated."

Maybe the borg prefer quality over quantity. Remember Seven's comment about the Kazon being unworthy of assimilation.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Mon, Jan 9, 2017, 2:16pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Peter it is interesting to think that Kirk would have not reported his encounter with Khan, but that is exceedingly unlikely. How would he explain the disappearance of the crew-woman he abandoned on Seti Alpha 5 with Khan? What would her family be told?

It seems to me that Seti Alpha 5 should have been quarantined with a beacon or something warning wayward ships from landing - much like they did with the world from The Cage or I'd imagine they did with Armis's world.

Speaking of which, I'm always amused at how the various Enterprises kept accumulating these trinkets and oddities throughout the universe and how they are never heard from again - from the Guardian of Forever to Armis to Kevin Uxbridge, to Dysonsphere - don't you just wonder if anyone ever deigns to follow up on these things?
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Jan 5, 2017, 4:22am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

I have to say I shared Khan's incredulity at learning that Chekov never spoke of him to his Captain or crew. I mean they're in the Seti Alpha system, the same star system where they abandoned the 20th Century genetically enhanced warlord 15 years ago. Oh I know they mistook the specific planet for Seti Alpha VI rather than V, but seriously, when they were scouting star systems for Genesis, it merited not even an "oh yeah, isn't that the star system?" from anyone? Not even as a matter of idle curiosity?
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 1:00pm (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S1: Emissary

True Peter, although it is hard to imagine someone like Picard letting go of such guilt.

But to be entirely fair to Picard, he did not actually "meet" Sisko of course; Sisko would have seen the Locutus broadcast but Locutus would have had no contact with Sisko. Who knows, maybe this was Picard's first personal interaction with a Wolf 359 survivor. Or maybe it was the first time one had the balls to throw it in his face like that. As Captain of the Federation flagship and a living legend, there can't have been too many willing to confront him like that.

I guess I just convinced myself out of my original point.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 4:43am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S1: Emissary

"Picard does not need to check the bios of every person affected by the loss of 11k people to see if he needs to walk on eggshells. That said, Sisko is clearly not the only person who harbors resentment and I thought that was an interesting avenue to explore for both of their characters."

Umm, except Sisko is hardly some random recruit. Picard states to Sisko that he has come to know the Bajorans and is personally motivated to aid their entry into the Federation. Clearly he considers this to be an important assignment. It stands to reason that he might even have had a hand in selecting the Commander for this mission. But even if Sisko was chosen by others, it would be out of character for a man like Picard not to know everything there is to know about this new Commander prior to meeting with him for his briefing. I mean sheesh - there were only, what 38 vessels at Wolf 359? I'd presume their names would be tattooed on Picard's brain by this point. Even a casual glance at Sisko's resume should have sent alarm bells off to Picard (holy shit, I destroyed this man's ship and murdered his friends and families!). For Picard to miss that is immensely uncharacteristic of him and makes little sense in context.

That said, Patrick Stewart's handling of the scene is sublime. He does not react with argument or anger or even say anything in response - this is not something a professional of Picard's class would do. But you hear it in his voice, the sudden change - you can feel the same emotions from that scene in Brothers. What a great actor Stewart is!
Next ►Page 1 of 6
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2017 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.