Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:

Total Found: 1,264 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 51
Set Bookmark
Robert
Thu, Jul 20, 2017, 12:00pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S2: Persistence of Vision

@Zakalwe - The holodeck converts matter into energy and then back into matter all of the time. After a certain number of years 95% of the things in the holodeck are basically made of recycled jizz. Interestingly, this is also why Voyager could never siphon power from the holodecks. The engines can't run on recycled jizz, but you can make an Irish village out of it!

I'll see myself out now.
Set Bookmark
Robert
Wed, Jul 19, 2017, 2:32pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S7: It's Only a Paper Moon

"Maybe Brooks and Lofton just preferred black women in real life and the showrunners ran with the actors' taste. "

This is probably the best explanation. I didn't personally find it offensive, it just felt deliberate. And therefore noticeable. I have no idea how the casting of these guest stars worked though. Do they bring them in for a test scene with the person they'll be dating? Maybe Lofton likes mocha as much as Jake likes nose crinkles.
Set Bookmark
Doctor Robert
Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 2:48am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S2: The 37's

To comment on some of the points above:

-To be fair, this was the mid-90s. People by-and-large didn't think cosmic radiation and micro-meteors would damage stuff left in space as much as they apparently do.
-Also, people didn't yet realize that radio signals typically don't last more than a light-year before they become static... of course Briori tech could've amplified the signal and/or Voyager's sensors must be amazing (if they can pick up rust in space, they can pick up an extremely weak radio signal).

-The whole "20th Century humans were primitive hairy monkeys" thing in Star Trek goes back to TOS, back when they weren't sure how far into the future the show was actually set... (maybe by 4000AD, they'll think the 20th century is ancient)
The "theory" is supposedly this:
1. There were two extremely devastating wars on Earth, The Eugenics Wars in the 1990s and World War III, which lasted from the 2020s to 2053ish. WWIII was definitely part-nuclear and I think some nukes were tossed around during the Eugenics Wars too. A lot of history and culture was supposedly lost.
2. Earth History takes a back seat in 24th Century schools, even on Earth (less so during Kirk's time), which explains why Harry Kim is so ignorant to Fords and trucks.
3. Space and technology and moving forward are paramount (hehehe) to Federation culture. Historians and history buffs are kind of ostracized: Tom Paris was in prison before he joined Voyager (because his dad didn't like his love for history, in a very basic nutshell) and Lt. McGivers on the TOS Enterprise chooses to join up with Khan, who's described as 90's Hitler, rather than stay with Starfleet. As for Picard, well, he's got enough Mary Sue powers to get by...

Of course the whole "so much culture and history was lost in WWIII and the Eugenics Wars" argument falls flat so often. Apparently the Voyager computer has copies of a '57 Chevy and a '69 Camaro for Paris to play around with in the holodeck... he even gets a friggin' TV filled with cartoons and shows at some point. Also it's weird that Shakespeare's and da Vinci's (et al) writings survive through "such devastation" (strange too that all the 90's people except Khan that Trek encounters seem to not know who the heck Khan is...).

Yeah, Star Trek has more plot holes than a SoCal freeway. I suggest reasons 2 and 3 are more logical reasons.


On this episode: it was average. Not the best and there certainly are worse episodes in Trekdom. I think it would've been more interesting if they had Earhart's "Ooh, space!" counter Janeway's "Ooh, planet!" desires. That would've been pretty interesting. Alas, pacing sucked in this episode (not as bad as some, though).

I feel like if Star Trek: Voyager was made today and was a Netflix series, Earhart would've definitely joined Voyager. Back in the day, they probably would've been all "we can't have Amelia Earhart Star Trek! What is this? A joke? Nuck, nuck, nuck!" It was very much the mentality of "episode of the week, villain of the week, problem of the week, nick-nack novelty of the week. This needs to be generic enough to pick up at any point and have little continuity." These days TV has gotten so much more relaxed and aware-of-itself and the production values have gone through the atmosphere. They'd want to do something wacky like this because TV is now serial based rather than episode based.

On the other hand, at this point Voyager already had an overly-curious young lady with a bob-hairdo and her kinda-boyfriend goofy male sidekick (*cough*Kes and Neelix*coughcough*)...
Set Bookmark
Robert
Fri, Jul 7, 2017, 11:49am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S7: Endgame

I don't know Robert. I seem to enjoy rewatches of Voyager more than any of the series and it's not that I had any expecations the first time I watched it.
Set Bookmark
Robert
Fri, Jul 7, 2017, 8:50am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S7: Endgame

@Martin - "I personally enjoyed the series much more this time around, not sure why"

If I had to guess I'd say expectations. You already know the series doesn't live up to it's potential so you can just enjoy what awesomeness is there instead of being flustered by expectations that they keep failing to meet.
Set Bookmark
Robert
Thu, Jul 6, 2017, 8:38am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S5: A Simple Investigation

You don't find it believable that a woman would be interested in a man that can change shapes? Really?
Set Bookmark
Robert
Mon, Jul 3, 2017, 9:53am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S2: Second Sight

I actually love Avery and all of the qualities he brought to Sisko, but this episode was bad and he was bad in it. And it's probably the only Sisko episode where I really can't stand him.
Set Bookmark
Robert
Mon, Jul 3, 2017, 9:50am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S5: Course: Oblivion

@William - I think you are arguing that the episode attempts to ponder (but not answer) the "Tree falls in a forest" question. I think you are right. I also do not know what that means for this episode, but I think you are right.
Set Bookmark
Robert Picard is the answer
Sat, Jul 1, 2017, 10:34am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S6: Honor Among Thieves

Uhm... Bilby does it for its family, ok... Following the duck test, Bilby looks like a human, has a name like a human, so he's a human (earthling). Sooooooo...
My 1 mln dollar question is: WHY THE HELL? Is him retarded? Why a 24ther earthling should live a so risky life to help (economically) his (earthling) family?
Vash was annoyed by Daystrom's and Federation's standards, and searchs for pure archaeological adventure, breaking some rules. Is passion, and I can understand... I can also understand people (earthlings) of Turkana-4, fond of their homeworld, even if it is a half-destroyed town on a unhabited planet. But Bilby and his wife? Why? It seems that Bilby dislikes this life, so... WHY? A personal holodeck for porn tales? A personal Galaxy starship? A moon nearby Gaila's one? Is him a latinum's collector (as for stamps)?
Uhm... Wouldn't be easier this?
*LIAM: Honey, New Sidney despite its "Federal" name is only a sort of Trill/Ferengi polluted mining colony. Shall we go back Earth and do whatever we want, without any economics/health/welfare problem for the eternity?
*MORICA: Of course, New Sydney sucks! And Starfleet is far better than NSPD. Let's go away from this crappy stone!

Resolved! OMG... I always thing that 24ther Earthlings, sometimes, are too stupid to understand how lucky they are. They want to suffer! "Omg, how stupid is this ambassador, and how bothersome is this admiral!" So... LEAVE - THE - FLEET - AND - CULTIVATE - SOME - VINEYARD - ON - EARTH! DUMB! In the morning you work in Labarre (France), in the afternoon you can go by the sea with your wife in CancĂșn (Mexico), in the evening you can see a moving desert sunset in Faya Largeau (Chad)... And next week: RISA! Nope, Orion Syndicate on Farius Prime! Cuz Farius has badassic suspended monorails!
I'm getting more and more convinced than the smartest man on the whole Federation is ROBERT PICARD (not the doctor, Jean-Luc's "strange-lips" brother). And also the luckiest: just take a look to this 60er redneck with a "lip's parkinson" and... Take a look to his wife! Is Marie "unknown surname" Picard blind? Or maybe she shares the strange partner tastes of Lwaxana and Janeway. Maybe.

Or this episode is another allegory: Humans like to suffer more than Klingons.

PS: I know thar Robert died on that "flight", but this confirms my theory. The day he decided to give Starfleet a possibility (for his son, ok) the luck ENDS. Immediatly! With the ONLY fire control accident on Earth in CENTURIES (apart that one caused by Q to that Q+Human couple).

R.I.P. Robert Picard, the only Federal person who really understand how to live in the 24th century: no bothersome head offices, no maphia, no money, no diseases. A ground to hoe, a wine to get drunk and make a funny brawl with your brother. Injured in the brawl cuz you're 60 y.o.? Don't worry: just 8 seconds of tricorder and u can get as a teenager :-D
Set Bookmark
Robert
Fri, Jun 30, 2017, 2:02pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The Outcast

@Chrome - I said RIGHT THERE in my hypothetical scenario that I only had 5 minutes to write as many laws as I could. You can't give any of this crap a lot of thought!! There's no time!
Set Bookmark
Robert
Fri, Jun 30, 2017, 1:18pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The Outcast

@Peter G. - "So it's a false dilemma when you make the two options either "everything you do is great! carry on!" and between "I'm a bigot, I hate you!""

I definitely wasn't trying to make those the only 2 options. There are plenty of things people do that I disapprove of. I just think that there are levels here.

Think about these statements -

1. I don't agree that gay people should be able to get married.

2. I don't think that gay people should be allowed to adopt children.

3. I don't think that gay people should be allowed to force my church to marry them.

4. I don't think that gay people should be allowed to be on prime time television.

5. I don't think my child's teacher should be gay.

Are any of these bigotry to you? All? None?

When you see a Catholic person who is ok with divorced people getting remarried and not ok with gay people doing it (both against the bible) hiding behind religious belief it's more than just "I disagree with you". But a lot of anti-gay people think that a clerk should be able to not issue a marriage license because "religious freedom". There are a lot of people that want to use your "live and let live" idea as a shield while painting my argument "Why can't you just be tolerant of my bigotry!" as a straw man.

I always like the whole "if you are against gay marriage licenses, don't get one!" But I do understand what you are saying. Anyone who thinks being gay is a choice, and a wrong one, and does nothing to try to shape society with that viewpoint.... I can just disagree with them. They are not a bigot.

I hate guns. I do. If you told me in 5 minutes I could enact as many laws as I wanted and they'd be 100% binding and could never be repealed one of the first ones I'd write is "repeal the 2nd amendment" (again, this is a fantasy, you rule the country and are supreme king kind of deal). But I've never voted based on that (I've voted for mostly people the NRA hates, but also 1 or 2 that they don't, that just isn't "my issue"). I've never donated money to any groups that try to pass gun legislation. I've never written my senator or posted on FB about it. I've never judged anyone for owning one... and I've even fired one at someone's bachelor party. I just don't like guns and I don't like the 2nd amendment. If someone could do that with gay rights.... I would respectfully agree to disagree and not consider them a bigot.
Set Bookmark
Robert
Fri, Jun 30, 2017, 9:35am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The Outcast

@Peter G - You're probably right. I hate that argument. "Why can't you just be tolerant of my bigotry!" Those are typically the same people that scream about the war on Christmas and would have no idea WTF to do if they were ever really discriminated against.
Set Bookmark
Robert
Fri, Jun 30, 2017, 9:30am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The Outcast

@Sebastian - FWIW, as "dated" as the episode is (I think the crew explaining gender to Soren is the most dated part, you could remove a lot of that and it would be a lot less dated), it's a really cool sci-fi concept. And I think she's both gender and sexuality non-conforming (it's hard to find English words to exactly describe her). In her culture they have no gender (or rather they have one neutral gender) and they are asexual. So her feeling like she both has a gender AND is attracted to other lifeforms makes her a trans AND gay allegory. The point being that anyone who is gender or sexuality non-conforming could actually see themselves "in there". And for a TV episode that aired in '92... that's very cool. And it's interesting sci-fi too. There's a lot to like about this.
Set Bookmark
Robert
Fri, Jun 23, 2017, 9:42am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The Outcast

@Miguel - What do you think homosexuals find offensive about heterosexuals? I'm genuinely curious. As a member of the heterosexual community... what concept and belief of mine do gay people not accept?
Set Bookmark
Robert
Mon, Jun 19, 2017, 10:24am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S3: Life Support

@Peter/Chuck - Agree, I'm about 95% sure that **SPOILERS INCOMING**


It was all meant to show what a terrible leader she is and what a great leader Bareil is. In his last showing we are show that the future of Bajor would have been bright with him as Kai. We are now left with the uncertainty of her in charge without a saint like Bareil propping her up.
Set Bookmark
Robert
Sat, Jun 17, 2017, 8:47pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S5: For the Uniform

0.0
Set Bookmark
Robert
Wed, Jun 14, 2017, 9:40am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The Outcast

@Paul - I think it's talked about because "I will admit that, like some others here, I was greatly affected by this as a young gay man"

To my knowledge Star Trek TNG, LA Law and Roseanne were the only prime time television series in the early 90s to make any sort of positive portrayal of non-gender conforming sexuality.

"I remember when I was very young, before I knew what I was, there was a rumour in my school that one of the students preferred a gender, in that case, male. The children started making fun of him, and every day they were more cruel They could tell he was afraid and somehow that seemed to encourage them. One morning in class, he appeared, bleeding and in ripped clothes. He said he had fallen down. And of course the school authorities found out and took him away, and gave him psychotectic treatments. When he came back, he stood in front of the whole school and told us how happy he was now that he had been cured. After that, I realised how dangerous it was to be different. And once I got older, and knew what I was, I was terrified. I have had to live with that fear ever since."

Star Trek was literally tackling how disturbing conversion therapy is SEVEN YEARS before "But I'm A Cheerleader". You can say that the episode is clunky, but it's history. And as a Star Trek fan it's a bit of history I'm proud to have. The truth is (and many people don't like to hear this) that most of TOS is clunky/dated too. But, like this episode, there are sparkles of what made it special and still worth watching. And with this episode in particular... it's a powerful piece of queer/Trek history.
Set Bookmark
Robert
Mon, Jun 12, 2017, 9:26am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S7: It's Only a Paper Moon

"As it is, it seems like a punishment to keep Vic alive 26 hours a day with only empty hollowsuite characters to talk to. I assume that none of their programming approaches his. It seems pretty close to solitary confinement. "

One assumes Quark won't be letting that holosuite run 26/7 without collecting a slip. I assume it'll become a gathering spot for DS9 crew. At least that's what I always felt they were heading towards.
Set Bookmark
Robert
Thu, Jun 8, 2017, 2:12pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The Masterpiece Society

Are we sure that Star Trek is pro-legal abortion (I'm not going to use pro-life or pro-choice here because I think they are sort of stupid in some ways)? Geordi clearly finds it a bit distasteful that he'd have been aborted when he has what it is clearly a "cureable" illness... but that said, I always thought LeVar said this with a chip on his shoulder about it.

In the early days at least, it was quite evident that using the VISOR was painful and that few people in the Federation use it and that it's not really a true "cure" for blindness. I wonder if perhaps people still did abort blind babies based on the way that LeVar acts that scene.

That said... aborting babies with physical defects is a different ball game altogether (as DLPB says) than aborting an unwanted baby. As DS9 shows us... unwanted pregnancies still happen. But as a few episodes with clones have shown, you can grow a baby in a maturation chamber I think? I think I'd be against legal abortion if you could transport your fetus through no damage to mom into a maturation chamber and put it up for adoption.

That said, I don't think the episode really goes THERE as much as it goes to the other place (what constitutes babies that are too "defective" to have).
Set Bookmark
Robert
Tue, Jun 6, 2017, 11:38am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: The Loss

@William B - " I think we can reasonably believe that people generally don't discriminate against Geordi for being blind without it meaning that he doesn't feel a sense of sadness at being shut out from an experience felt by most humans. I think we can reasonably believe that people generally don't discriminate against Geordi for being blind without it meaning that he doesn't feel a sense of sadness at being shut out from an experience felt by most humans. "

The only time I felt that Geordi may have experienced discrimination from blindness was in his conversation with the woman engineer in "The Masterpiece Society". I feel like LeVar added a bit of a chip on Geordi's shoulder in his acting in that scene. It was quite good.
Set Bookmark
Robert
Fri, Jun 2, 2017, 10:47am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

It's worth considering that bromance may be negative in non-liberal circles. I mean... Obama joked about his bromance with Biden... and I assure you he didn't mean anything sexual about that. So it's worth contemplating that to conservatives there's still a nasty playground "well if you love him so much, why don't you marry him!" snark to the term, whereas to liberals it's literally just a term that describes a thing and has no baggage on it. But then I feel conservatives lean homophobic, so they sometimes seem bothered by a lot of terms that are harmless (to me). Like I imagine metrosexual would bother somebody who is uncomfortable with homosexuality.

That said, considering the amount of Kirk/Spock slash out there... anybody who wants to go THERE already can. So ya...
Set Bookmark
Robert
Fri, Jun 2, 2017, 7:18am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

Trying to decide if I should type this, but I think it's relevant to Trek because of the original three.

First, I haven't seen this and didn't intend to... the last one was so annoying to me that I gave up. Maybe I should.

Second, I'm a tiny bit liberal (just a touch :P) and I just argued that diversity for the sake of diversity is very Trek. If we launch a new show and the cast was all male I wouldn't watch it. Truly.

But the cast is what it is, this being a reboot and all... and I don't know that always headlining Uhura because she happens to be the token woman/POC is the right solution to this problem.

Personally I've always been a fan of thoroughly exploring the WHOLE cast in Trek. I felt TNG/DS9s ensemble focus was more interesting than TOS's trinity. But when you focus on the ensemble sometimes it's your day to shine, sometimes it's not. Always putting the focus on Saldana, talented as she is, isn't the way to fix this problem.

So how do we fix it? Well if we can have an all female Ghostbusters then I think we just let it go. It's a reboot of a 60s television show. There are built in problems to the concept (I would have boldly gone into the future, but my feelings on reboots stand above this). I'd rather worry that we're 20 movies into the MCU and we've yet to have a woman headline them. Worrying about the gender balance on a 60s reboot seems a waste to me. Are we going to complain if they make a Three Stooges movie and they are all guys? Further... can nothing ever be all guys again? Maybe McCoy and Scotty shining in this one is ok. Hopefully Uhura will shine in 4 or 5 (though I still won't be watching).

Ok and third... gulp... Trump/Putin. Yes, there is gay insinuation. I personally don't like the concept of using gay as an insult... But when you have a thin skinned guy who's obsessed with masculinity, well I do get why it's fun to poke him that way. But I've never heard anybody refer to it as a bromance. To me, bromance is the white version of "they love each other, no homo". It implies not gay, but close (and maybe close in a way macho men weren't allowed to be). House and Wilson, Kirk and Spock, O'Brien and Bashir, Oliver and Diggle... this is where I hear the term. And it always feels positive, like people are excited to see close male friendship. It never feels gay or questioning masculinity or snarky.
Set Bookmark
Robert
Thu, Jun 1, 2017, 11:23am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

Not anymore! :P

Free market self correcting is the best kind of solution IMHO. People should be allowed to say WTF they want and businesses should be allowed to pick and choose who they want representing their brand. This is going to follow her a long time. As well it should.

But if you look at the reactions on the left, nobody had her back. And in reality... the same is often true when it happens on the right. When somebody does something vile they get slammed for it. They lose their job. Nobody has their back. Mel Gibson suffered for his anti-Semitic rant for instance. Nobody defended that.
Set Bookmark
Robert
Thu, Jun 1, 2017, 11:09am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

DLPB, I think you're missing the point. I did have a problem with it. We've had Presidents assassinated before. Joking about it is unacceptable. My point is that it's not a symptom of the deranged left.

The TLDR is that a liberal shock comedian made a joke in really poor taste, it landed flat, NOBODY laughed (on either side of the aisle), nobody supported her, she apologized and got fired.

My question to you is... what do you think should have happened that didn't? In what way does one individual doing something stupid reflect the entire left if the entire left is willing to admit she was wrong? Should the ENTIRE right be held responsible for every vile thing that the worst member of your "team" does? Like... is that the place we want to be?
Set Bookmark
Robert
Thu, Jun 1, 2017, 10:39am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

@DLPB - "Liberals keep shooting themselves in the foot. Case in point, that moronic mock Trump execution by that daft lady the other day. "

I am trying not to go into current politics much. I think there's too much Trump all over. But I have to ask, seriously. What exactly is wrong with what happened in the Trump execution?

A "shock" comedian (they are not my thing, but they do exist... and they exist on both sides) crossed a line (which is sort of their job anyway... though this was three or four lines further than the line one should cross), was derided for it on both sides (her liberal co-workers did not back her, liberal politicians complained, Chelsea Clinton complained, etc.), she apologized and was fired. Like... what should have happened? How is this a function of the "Left" doing anything wrong?

And individual did something wrong, nobody backed her up on it, she apologized and lost her job. If only ever incident of somebody doing something stupid was handled so neatly.
Next ►Page 1 of 51
▲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.