Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:

Total Found: 283 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 12
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Wed, Oct 18, 2017, 10:05am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Krill

William what you describe is paradoxical. You can't have people just like us living in a utopian future free of war, prejudice and hate - because then they wouldn't be just like us. Star Trek's ideal is not just about new technology but new people.

I am not just talking about the anachronism of guys cracking jokes about 20th century car rentals either.

My point is if you accept that the Orville takes place in some bright Star Trek like future then that vision is fraudulent.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Tue, Oct 17, 2017, 8:58am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Choose Your Pain

I stand corrected E2. I still don't think the writers remember what the Tardigrade is capable of (and since it's gone, I guess it hardly matters)

Incidentally, I think I recognize this kind of storytelling from back when the show Heroes was on the air. I think Jammer sort of alludes to this in his review. The narrative sputters around, erratic and half cocked. It isn't so much a smooth arc but a plane trying to get off the ground and faltering, going up only to crash down and go up again.

I suspect this show will go through many failed arcs. Threads will be introduced and then promptly forgotten. It wouldn't shock me if even the spore drive gets jettisoned at some point. It will happen abruptly, unceremoniously and it will be as if it never happened.

It's ADD storytelling.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Tue, Oct 17, 2017, 7:32am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Choose Your Pain

Thinking back through the mists of time, oh say two episodes ago, I could have sworn that the tardigrade was an indestructible killing machine capable of smashing through hull plates, shrugging off phaser fire and murdering the entire crew of a starship. I get it: the creature was only aggressive when threatened; but in light of the fate of the Glenn, was it not clear that this creature was pretty zealous about protecting itself?

So point a phaser in its general direction and it will go Resident Evil on you and wipe out your starship to the last man in a blood soaked rampage. But torture it by sticking needles in it and it's just a saaad cute widdle puppy who needs Saint Michael's help to be free!

What's funny is that I don't even think the writers remember anything about what happened two episodes ago. They can't even make the show consistent episode to episode so it's foolhardy to expect them to honour canon established in a previous show on the air a decade ago. This is television Memento style; each episode is tabula rasa.

Ohhh look!! Harry Mudd! He was in the original series! Because it's STAR TREK! And they mentioned Pike and Archer in passing! I'm having a fangasm. Maybe they should have Picard show up as a guest star. That would be cool!!

Sadly my cable subscription ends in a few days, as I'm cord cutting and moving over to Netflix. So this was likely my last episode. I'll just have to enjoy this show vicariously through this message board. I guess I've chosen my pain.

Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Oct 12, 2017, 7:28am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: The Butcher's Knife Cares Not for the Lamb's Cry

Djkazaz you do make a good point that the franchise has alot of catching up to do. Heck with any new show even one that was well supported and easy to bridge from previous ones (like DS9) it takes time for the actors to grow into their roles. With the exception of Buffy and maybe a few others I can't think of too many shows that were running from the opening gate. So I will cut Discovery the tiniest bit of slack on this.

I do think the storytelling has been wesk so far, but that seems to be a feature of modern storytelling and obviously audiences don't mind so I'll set that aside. The negation of Trek canon and the decision to essentially reboot the setting is a slap in the face to the fanbase, but that should not stand in the way of the show being good - maybe it won't be good Trek but it can still succeed.

For me the two issues that will need resolution if this show is to succeed are the Klingons and the main character Michael Burnham.

I admire the ambition of trying to make the Klingons alien and speaking purely in their language. But as others have noted ad nauseum this has crippled the actors, making their jobs impossible. Something needs to be done about this, especially if the Klingons are going to be a central part of the story. I actually do think there might be a good actor or two buried in there somewhere as I did find myself feeling bad for the albino no-name Klingon - kind of a loveable loser. But it is really really hard with the artificial impediments the show has imposed. That needs to be fixed. Time to tone down the makeup and find some way to get the Klingons speaking English ASAP. Just do it.

The Michael character is a tougher nut to crack because with her it's not a technical fix but goes to the abilities of the actress. And let's face it she just isn't that good.

If you are going to make the entire show revolve around her you need a Patrick Stewart, a Shatner, someone with charisma. Say what you will about Brooks' s acting as Sisko (and I know many didn't approve of it to put it mildly, though I am not in that camp) the man had energy and charisma. He gave a performance! Kate Mulgrew as Janeway also managed some energy despite the characterization issues that were more the fault of writing than the actress.

I'm sorry but Michael is not cutting it. She's not only bland and low energy, she is just boring. The writing certainly isn't helping what with her wildly inconsistent characterization. By the way was she raised by Vulcans because at this point you'd hardly know - it seems like even the writers forgot that detail. I still know almost nothing about her personally, what she values, how she thinks except the barest sketches and the whole show is about her! The first officer, frankly, is far better developed despite having 1/8 of her screen time.

And getting back to the point, even if you hated Brooks as Sisko or Stewart as Picard, they were not the be all end all's of their respective shows! Those were ensemble shows. Unfortunately for STD thus far it's been the Michael show with that actress carrying the entire series on her back. It is unsustainable. She just isn't good enough.

To sum up, the people writing this show need to eat crow and fix the Klingons and they need to allow the focus to shift away from the Michael character. It needs to be Star Trek Discovery, not Star Trek Michael's Redemption.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Wed, Oct 11, 2017, 6:56am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: The Butcher's Knife Cares Not for the Lamb's Cry

How does the crew read the Ripper's mind? It knows all the pathways of the spores and has a map of the galaxy in its head? Okay I'll buy that. How do they know what it knows and how do they tell it where to go?

Oh wait, I know the answer! Some other Starfleet officer on the Glenn who we never met invented a magic machine to do it! And it's plug and play! Like something in an RPG game - you figure out what quest item you need to insert into it to make it work and BADANG +500xp now the discovery can teleport instantly to where they want to be just in time to destroy the Klingons and save the miners +1,000xp level up (at this point I am sure a tutorial should pop up explaining how to use the jump drive - just open your auto map and click on wormhole symbols on the map)

This is some seriously lazy, sloppy Abrams style storytelling.

By the way, when they jumped above that star I figured well maybe they got close enough? Maybe they can go the rest of the way by warp? I was waiting for someone to ask where they were, but nope.- wherever it was it wasn't instantly over their mission objective so who cares? Another galaxy maybe? Borg space? Whatever get with the program. Imagine my foolishness thinking that there could be, you know, *discovery* on my Star Trek show called discovery. Remember Where No One has Gone Before? (both original and TNG) wasn't that cool when Starfleet officers cared about exploration?

By the way, I hate the main character's name. It really is starting to bug me alot. Michael is a man's name. It isn't even androgynous like Kelly. And the character isn't trans. It's just pretentious and obnoxious. It just makes you want to punch someone in the face.



Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Fri, Oct 6, 2017, 7:07am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Context Is for Kings

Wow you know I just forgot about the whole Alice in Wonderland reference which is the same in the Resident Evil films. Holy smokes they really are ripping off Resident Evil!
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Fri, Oct 6, 2017, 7:03am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Context Is for Kings

Am I the only one who got a distinctly Resident Evil vibe from this episode? Has Starfleet been co-opted by Umbrella Corporation? It's either that or Event Horizon - space fungus opens the gateway to HELL!!
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Mon, Sep 25, 2017, 12:12pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: The Vulcan Hello / Battle at the Binary Stars

I really wish they had not made another prequel. I just have zero interest in this setting. Colossal miscalculation on their part. I think fans would have clamored for a continuation of the story and setting they loved (post ds9 / Voyager) not another backward looking retconn. I'll watch the series if Hammer gives it phenomenal reviews but otherwise meh, won't bother.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 9:13am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Old Wounds

I have been debating whether or not to see this show. The premise is interesting, but my main hesitation is MacFarlane. I don't hate the man or his work. I have liked Family Guy at times and was even a fan of his offbeat Oscar hosting performance.

But there's no question when I watch his stuff, even when I enjoy it (like with sone Family Guy or American Dad) I feel dirty like there's this ugly film over his material and I feel soiled for watching it.

MacFarlane's characters aren't just irreverent or silly or parodies (like with Simpsons or Futurama) they're contemptible, even ugly. I echo Peter's point that MacFarlane's ethos is really the anti Trek. He takes something banal and really nasty in the modern culture, amplifies it and then projects it onto everyone, everywhere. It's not souless - it has a soul and it's vile and depressing.

Much of his work seems an exercise in persuading the audience that we're all as vulgur, vapid and empty as he is (or wants us to think he is). I also think alot of his stuff is straight up misogynistic, and that's not an accusation I make lightly.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Wed, Sep 13, 2017, 5:25am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Old Wounds

I haven't had a chance to watch the Orville, but to those starved for lighter scifi you may like the Lexx, a series from many years ago but that still holds up today. It had an initial run of four movies (basically a mini series in four parts) and then three regular seasons.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Tue, Sep 5, 2017, 6:56am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: The Drumhead

Rather, Mikey, I call BS on this supposed utopia - as DS9 and later Trek stories did with great success. Trek was always at its best when it explored its characters' humanity, and the utopia described (mostly through Picard in STNG) is phony baloney for a plethora of reasons.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Fri, Sep 1, 2017, 11:50am (UTC -5)
Re: BSG S2: Pegasus

@Tara,

We are almost in complete agreement on most major points so I won't beat a dead horse. But suffice it to say the kind of argument you were making and the thought process I see behind it is very much cosistent with what I hear from women again and again and rarely from other men. So no I'm not the guy from Greek myth who lived as both sexes yet I do perceive a noticeable (though sometimes subtle) divergance between how men and women see sex.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Fri, Sep 1, 2017, 9:39am (UTC -5)
Re: BSG S2: Pegasus

"Because you don't need to get it that way. "

It depends what "it" you are trying to get. Sexual desire is not just having an orgasm or even having sex with any woman like a prostitute as Tara implied.

This is as tone deaf as claiming a heroin addict should be satisfied with marijuana or even methadone. People want what they want when they want it how they want it especially under addictive or compulsive influence.

And speaking of addiction my drug example isn't that far off from sex. The neurochemical effect of sex is often similar to drugs. That it's a built in addiction owing to biology does not change the fact that all of us, on some level, are addicted to sex on a chemical level.

So just tossing sexual desire aside like it's incidental or not important is my main objection moreso even than focusing on power.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Fri, Sep 1, 2017, 9:24am (UTC -5)
Re: BSG S2: Pegasus

@Tara,

I actually don't have a problem with what you said except that it isn't really in agreement with the "rape is about power" dogma that we all hear as gospel and waters that down quite a bit.

And I never claimed women don't understand wanting sex - I said they don't understand wanting sex the way a male does, which claim I stand by. You think you get it but you don't - you get it from a female pov but not from a male one.

My drug user example was not to exonerate rapists anymore than I would exonerate tweakers who kill for their addiction. I merely point out that divorcing sex from rape is as silly as divorcing robbery for drug money from drug addiction.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 9:59pm (UTC -5)
Re: BSG S2: Pegasus

Tara note I never disagreed with the point that many of the excuses surrounding rape were myths or at least half truths.

I merely stated that the "rape is about power not sex" dogma was itself another myth / half truth but one touted with the force of certitude by experts and authorities and pop culture for my entire life. It's reductionist in the extreme.

Your final paragraph is presumptuous to say the least given that as a woman you have no experience of a male sex drive or male perspective on sex and seem to have a poor understanding of it. I don't have to guess why contact with a woman (even an unwilling one) might be preferable to masturbation or seeing a prostitute. It isn't complicated and the answer does not require a great leap of imagination if you open your perspective beyond your own.

What is required is for you to simply imagine wanting something, now, in a viceral way, like a physical need or addiction. Then imagine that you either have weak morals, poor empathy, or simply don't fear consequences, or you simply permit your need to overwhelm those things just like people do every day with alcohol, drugs, gambling and an infinite number of destructive irrational behaviours fuelled by physical compulsion.

Do you lecture a heroin addict that when he robs someone at knifepoint to get cash for his next fix it isn't really about the addiction but some other thing like hatred or power? Do you tell him that he could just use methadone, go into rehab or take in a hobby so obviously the heroin isn't the cause?

Not a perfect analogy I concede but close enough.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 7:21pm (UTC -5)
Re: BSG S2: Pegasus

@Tara,

So it seems one bit of nonsense was replaced by another. But the difference is the "rape is about power" foolishness is not only still currency but popularly assumed to be unassailable truth.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 1:41pm (UTC -5)
Re: BSG S2: Pegasus

@Robert,

While empathy does exist in varying levels for most people (save maybe true psychopaths) it is undoubtedly a weak force in its most basic form and no match for sexual urges on the totem pole of human impulse. Strong empathy, like morality, has to be built up and trained.

And I think Peter has it right - civilized behaviour is not the default but the exception. If inherent human empathy were really that strong you would not see so many societies where things like rape, even child rape, are normal parts of everyday life. Even pedophilia is not rare in some societies, where social norms against it are lacking.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 10:31am (UTC -5)
Re: BSG S2: Pegasus

@Robert,

I don't think we necessarily disagree but may be framing things differently. I'm sure you've walked down a street (especially in your teens and twenties) seen a woman and felt you wanted her. Not you wanted a consensual mutually respectful sexual encounter but *wanted* her, period. Why not just take what you want? Well because it would be wrong (morality), you'd feel bad if she cried and was in pain (empathy) and you'd be afraid of being sent to jail (law).

But the instinct is there and the instinct in of itself doesn't care about consent. To use a computer analogy the instinct is like firmware - built into and intertwined with one's nature. Pretty much everyone has it built in. The rest is software, a variable "package" of programs built on top of things that varies wildly among different individuals.

Maybe your empathy subroutines are so maxxed out that you could never rape. Then again, maybe with enough alcohol or drugs and a victim who didn't fight back too hard you might get over the tipping point. I don't know you so that's just an example, not a statement of certainty.

Throw in a bunch of other variables like the extreme stress of war, demonization of the enemy and a consequence free environment and maybe just maybe you would. No one really knows for sure how they would react until they're tested. We like to believe that we can never betray our moral centres - but who knows for sure. A bit like the DS9 episode where Jake discovers his own cowardice in the face of combat. Pretty insightful episode and applicable to this topic.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 9:41pm (UTC -5)
Re: BSG S2: Pegasus

I wish one could edit posts because I forgot to make my ultimate point. If morality, law and empathy are the three pillars separating the good men from the rapists (and indeed, most human beings from other atrocities) then as you knock those pillars down, one by one, it is to be expected that a greater and greater number of people are going to act out in more and more antisocial even egregious ways. This isn't a justification - it's just the physics of the situation.

In the BG example, those men were told that the woman they were raping was not human (-empathy), that what they were doing was for a good cause (-morality) and that they would suffer no negative consequences for their acts (-law).

You can fault them certainly for rationalizing the act and rejecting the truth of what their own eyes were showing them. But it shouldn't be some kind of surprise that they'd be tempted. I'm going to wager that better men have done far worse atrocities in far lesser circumstances. These soldiers were probably not especially villainous compared to their peers.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 9:30pm (UTC -5)
Re: BSG S2: Pegasus

@ Tara,

As Peter notes, I don't think we disagree on anything in particular.

I did, however, want to zero in on something specific you said: "Commanding men considered rape to be an a-ok reward and stress relief that was owed to our 'Greatest Generation'"

This goes back to a slightly tangential point I was making earlier about the connection between rape and sex. The idea that rape is primarily let alone exclusively "about" power and not sex is such arrant nonsense. Like most violent crimes, there may be many motivations to rape. Saying that it's always about a man seeking to exert power is akin to claiming that a bank robbery is always about thrills and never money. It's just manifestly, obviously false. Rape is almost certainly about sex frequently, plain and simple sex.

"Stress relief" in this context means sex. Sex is what most young men want, with many women if they can get it. Some of these rapes you described were probably power trips or for other motives like revenge - I am not denying that in the slightest - but a simpler logical explanation for most of them is that they wanted what all men want, and opportunistically used war as a good venue to get it for free with anyone they pleased, without consequence. Sure they could have paid for it in a brothel, but this was license to have something truly forbidden, something not for sale, and with no legal repercussion. Men who seek out married women are probably tapping into a fraction of this - but it's still about sex for them too.

The reason I'm making this specific point is because I think the "rape is about power" dogma promotes a false and dangerous understanding of its underlying causes. It seeks to demonize the *motivation* behind rape, pretending that it is something alien, extraordinary, highly deviant. The motivation behind rape isn't special or exceptional - it's often just sex plain and simple, and the only thing separating the rapist from the normal man is morality, law and empathy.

So my ultimate point is that as a man it's not very hard to understand why men rape, even if I've never raped and never will rape. I understand it the same way I understand the motivation to push a gun in a bank teller's face and run away with a bag full of cash you didn't earn, or the motivation to murder evil people, like say child molesters or rapists.

Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 9:58am (UTC -5)
Re: BSG S2: Pegasus

Peter I stopped watching BSG about mid way through the series so I'm not super clear on the nature of the Cylons. But I do recall the Pegasus episodes and my recollection is that there's little ambiguity that the Cylon humanoids (as opposed to the Centurions, which are tin cans) are indeed sexual beings and more or less human in every way that matters. They are even organic on the inside, unlike, say the Terminator.

Indeed, as I recall, the Caprica Cylon even commits suicide as a result of rape trauma.

It is pretty much counter to the text to suggest that the Cylons don't experience rape like a human.

Now whether the soldiers know this or not that is another question. Then it becomes some kind of metaphysical question like is it okay to be a "rapist" on say a holodeck provided you never act out the fantasy in real life. Is a person a "rapist" if they want to rape but don't (due to morality, fear of legal consequences etc...)
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 7:07am (UTC -5)
Re: BSG S2: Pegasus

Ellen you seemed shocked and disturbed that these men wanted to rape and used the fact that Sharon was a Psilon as a flimsy excuse to exercise this desire. You raised the valid point that this meant they were essentially "rapists" merely constrained by societal convention / law. You seemed disturbed by that conclusion as if you didn't quite believe that it was possible.

I inferred from this that you might have a binary view of people where someone is either a "rapist" or not - and somehow circumstances don't matter. I also figured you bought into the black or white "wall" between rape and sex, which seems to be the case from your reply.

My point was that lots of ordinary people are capable of committing atrocities in the right circumstances. We saw this fact in World War 2 among the Germans of course, but also with the French, Polish and others who aided and abetted Nazi atrocities despite being their enemies. We saw it again in Rwanda and Bosnia and see it on the news from time to time when previously "good" kids commit heinous atrocities like gang rape or counsel their boyfriend to suicide - all with no prior history of anti social behaviour.

You may say those people are bad, and that's fine - but I guarantee they're also your friends, co-workers and maybe even close family.

So no I'm not justifying atrocities like rape. I'm saying that lots and lots of people in the world are capable of rape, much like lots are capable of genocide - given the right push of circumstance. Imagining evil to be the product of some extreme deviant condition in some rare monstrous person like a Jeffrey Dahmer or Hitler - that is the delusion.

Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 10:59am (UTC -5)
Re: BSG S2: Pegasus

Ellen a few points in response to your thought provoking post.

While I agree the actions of the rapists were evil - to put things in perspective, the target of their aggression belonged to a race that had just recently nearly wiped out the human race. This is not my justifying their behaviour but merely putting it into context that explains why they would find it far easier to justify such an act to themselves and their peers.

Now the other more controversial piece of the puzzle I'll put forward. Part of the problem is you may have been led to believe that sex and rape are two distinct concepts, that rape exists in some distinct universe as an idiosynchratic personal characteristic in the same vein as a shoe fetish or even pedophilia.

Yet this is false. Rape is to sex what robbery is to commerce - not a perfect analogy, but close enough. It is still sex and sex is probably the most primal instinct in the natural world. Everyone (in very general terms, with some exceptions) wants it and it becomes a question of how far someone is willing to go (and who one is willing to hurt) to get it. Consent is not some hard defining characteristic of "sex" and it never has been until recently.

You take away law, you take away moral censure, mix in a hefty dose of revenge fuelled by (justified) hatred and it isn't a mystery.

It's no different than allegedly good people standing aside and watching genocide, or even participating when given the chance. Human beings aren't neatly divided into "rapists" and "murderers" and "thieves".

Think of it as sliding bars on a graph with morality, sexual desire, sadism, power, desperation, and hatred all at different levels depending on the person. Some are prone to rape in any circumstance. Others might only rape if stressed to the max by external environmental factors. Others may never initiate but might join in after the fact. And some might never rape in any scenario.

Believing that the world is divided solely into "always" and "never" (and this goes for any crime, not just rape) is a dangerous delusion.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 6:50am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S7: The Changing Face of Evil

Quark my read on it is that the Breen do everything to isolate themselves from others, both physically and psychologically. They wear those encounter suits and I imagine they deliberately obscure their language somehow. They are supreme xenophobes.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Sun, Aug 27, 2017, 7:34am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: Galaxy's Child

What a wonderful world we live in Alex. Truly a time of wonders and greatness.
Next ►Page 1 of 12
▲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.