Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 160 (Showing 26-50)

Set Bookmark
Hank
Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 11:44pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: Identity, Part I

I love this. First, my reading of Isaac from a few episodes back, when he starts his relationship, seems to be correct: He truly does not have emotions. So I am obviously pleased with my superior intelligence, but it is no shame to admit inferiority in this case ;)

So far, everything makes sense. I can totally see an AI coming to the conclusion that coexistence is impossible. And an additional reason is already provided: They need space to grow, and, projecting forward in time, the universe only has finite ressources, so why share with inferior beings? Isaac made it clear from the start that he does not see anybody as equal. So great going there. Yes, the child walking off the ship was ... dubious, but on the other hand, why would machines assume that a bioligical life form wanders into their city? Sure, they know that the possibility exists, but Isaacs actions established very well that, while he has extensive knowledge, it is very hard for him to predict how people around him will act. Which is ultimately why the Kaylon conclude that coexistence is impossible. Biological life is a chaotic variable.

The proof of the pudding is, of course, in the eating (but the proof is not in the pudding, contrary to popular belief), so we will have to wait and see how this situation gets resolved. Most likely, Isaac will save the day, that would be the most convenient and likely outcome. But, the Orville has surprised me a few times by introducing plot developments that weren't easy or obvious, so I keep my hopes up that something else will happen. We might even get a full arc over a few episodes, like DS9s later seasons, with a full fledged war between the Union and Kaylon. But whatever it is, I hope it is exciting, and does not revolve a (literal) reset button. Stargate did pretty well with their replicators, so maybe it won't end with everybody holding hands and pretending nothing happened.
Set Bookmark
Hank
Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 10:18pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: Deflectors

Maybe it's just me, but I find this point of view that somehow gay people are portrayed in a bad light in this series ... confusing.

I personally see it this way: There are good people and bad people, good cultures and bad cultures. The Moclans have a bad culture, which produces bad people. That they are "gay" (well, not really, but lets just assume that they are) is incidental to their actions, not fundamental. Their actions are guided by a very strict moral code, long standing traditions, and brutal rituals. That sounds like islam or some other backwards religion/culture to me. Their strict focus on "sex only for recreation" comes straight out of fundamental christian teachings, and I dare say is not assosciated with gay people, who are, according to the prejudice, promiscuous, nymphomanic, deviant and out to destroy the classic family - the exact opposite. So, an ultra-conservative gay-people hating person watching this is put in the uncomfortable position that those descpicable people lead the perfect conservative life, going so far to imprison and banish every deviant. I don't know. I just can't see how anybody could watch the Moclans and think "aaaah yes, gay people at work, who would have guessed!" unless there is a widespread prejudice that gay people want to "end" heterosexual people, which must have escaped me. Of course, you can read this any way you want, there is always an interpretation that fits your worldview, including an interpretation that the Orville is pushing a gay utopia where straight people are oppressed by a rampant mob of gays, who even altered their biology to be able to not rely on females.

I am with wolfstar on this. Just because somebody is gay, he is not a good or bad person. Similarily, who knows what an "all gay" culture might look like? There is no guarantee that it will turn into a free society. People don't tend towards freedom as much as security, in my experience, and most people are cowards. If anything, the Moclans are a cautionary tale against close mindedness. Gay people are shunned and hated because they deviate from the norm. Moclans ONLY have norms. Of course they hate everybody who is not average, as stated in the episode, and that is the message. Their monosexuality has nothing to do with that message. And frankly, there will always be people who just see what they want to see, and if they hate gay people anyways, portraying the Moclans as an utopian "happy go lucky" society will just cement their prejudices that gay people have no morals. By making them ultramoralistic, a big chunk of religious prejudice against gay people is preemtively eliminated.
Set Bookmark
Hank
Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 8:41pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Sound of Thunder

@Clark: Harp on Cannon? Sounds like the 1812 Ouverture to me ;)
Set Bookmark
Hank
Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 5:38pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Saints of Imperfection

"Life must be easy, if you think the [giant invisible hand]* that is writing this story actually knows what it is doing ..."

Well said, Burnham, well said. Imagine if the writers knew what the heck they are doing ...*sings* imagine there's no heaven!

*don't recall the actual wording here
Set Bookmark
Hank
Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 5:33pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Sound of Thunder

@Steven: Yeah, completely forgot about Insurrection. That movie wasn't so great either, if I forgot that fact, and I have seen it multiple times. But still, they need SOMETHING that makes them stay for 1300 years, controlling a population they fear and hate. And to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't have minded a derivative story, if it actually was a good story.
Set Bookmark
Hank
Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 5:20pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Sound of Thunder

Hm, didn't like it.

I expected something ... more substantial? Ok, the setup is fine, up until the point where the Goa-Ould say "You (Kelpians) don't know who you are!". Here I fully expected the twist that the Goa-Ould are actually evolved Kelpians: The Ritual of "sacrifice" actually transforms them. As Saru said beforehand, other than the oppression, his world is a paradise. So my thought was that the evolved Kelpians let the unevolved Kelpians have their share of Eden before bringing them to the real world, or whatever. Or that Kelpians might NEED that phase of terror and constant fear in their life, otherwise they don't grow up properly, become sterile, or whatever. That would explain why they just didn't leave the planet. Or, another possibility, that the Goa-Ould actually need the Kelpians in some form of symbiosis. That would have opened up some ethical dilemma: Yes, the Kelpians are suppressed, but if they aren't, the Goa-Ould die, so ...

But now, when they are just afraid that the Kelpians will kill them all - why not just leave/kill them all outright? Why are they still afraid in the first place? It just makes no sense that there are still Kelpians and Goa-Ould around when they already almost extinguished each other once, and one side is so superiour to the other. Star Fleets actions make no sense as well. Why just assume that everything will be fine when you turn a whole population of docile people into fearless predators? "The Goa-Ould still have superiour technology!" yeah, sure sure, but you are just setting up the planet for a massive world war because one side fears extinction, and the other comes to the realization that for 1300 years, they were suppressed, and WILL want revenge, given how Saru behaved himself in front of Cpt. Pike. I mean, if the Goa-Ould are so advanced now, they would have been sentient 1300 years ago - and more advanced anyways, if 300 odd people (if the statistics are not displaying units of 10000 or millions or somesuch, which I find unlikely, since there are only 4000 odd "villages" of Kelpians on the planet) can turn the tide on a massively numerically superior enemy. Which means the Kelpians are genocidal.

And then we see the Goa-Ould. And as cool as they look - that needs an explanation. Are you telling me a srawny little Kelpian is hunting a huge, three or four meter tall beast with giant claws and glowing red eyes? Have the Goa-Ould genetically modified themselves? Whats going on here? Why can they breathe underwater? Whats with the oil slick (other than a callback to that certain TNG episode)? How does THAT species evolve on a planet as serene? And how are THEY the prey?

And then the Red Angel happened, and Deus-Ex-Machinaed the whole thing to oblivion. And I came to the terrible realization that the Angel is either:

1: Micheal Burnham from the future
2: Mirror Georgiou from the future
3: Prime Georgiou from the future
4: Some random woman who has some random motivation to do random things to random people (but always includes Michael T. Burnham in her plans).

Seriously, by having the situation resolved by just brute force, there is nothing substantial here. Yes, sure, the heroes won the day (by having an aggressive genocidal predator species realize its potential for aggression, yay), and the Red Angel is super duper mysterious, but, what are we supposed to take from this? Nothing was resolved. The cycle just started anew. Is there really nothing deeper to all this technological commitment from the Goa-Ould than primal fear? What was Discoveries Plan B after the activation of the Kelpians? Did they really think the Goa-Ould would just say "Oh well, our efforts of 1300 years are wasted, guess we just love each other now?" instead of "Jesus fucking baby jesus christ on a stick, they are going to kill us all, NUKE EM FROM SPACE!"? Also, the Goa-Ould are said to be able to "keep Star Fleet at bay" (why? Star Fleet does not impress itself on people who don't want contact, so there is no need to keep them at bay), yet they only have Warp for a few years, yet they have Giant ships (with constantly firing thrusters that fire down, but their ships are not moving away from Discovery), yet Discovery is confident that it can defeat the energy shield of that massive fortress, yet it never fires a shot, and Discovery does not understand that the obelisks are only relays, they just have to destroy the few closest to the fortress to stop the whole machinery, and why didn't the Goa-Ould ships try to stop Discovery when they discovered that all the Kelpians are awakening, and why is Saru just free to sabotage their whole control room, why is there no surveillance, why is he in a control room and not a holding cell in the first place (even though there are forcefields in the doorways, which you would expect from a cell, not somwhere control room/meeting room), why do they only send completely inadequate flying drones if they KNOW that the Kelpians are super powerful, why do said drones which only have whirly bits for attacking, and not phasers, why does Slick-Guy not come back and try to stop Saru, why can Saru rip apart solid metal, what the fuck is actually going on here?

Superficially, this episode is about oppression, how superstition and fear leads to terrible things, and how people can come together to overcome such differences, but nothing of that sort actually happens. Sure, the Kelpians are "oppressed", but we are never shown what actually happens to them. We assume that they are killed, but we haven't heard the other side, and no confirmation. For all we know, they lead perfectly save, healthy, plentyful lives for at least several decades before being "culled". We are never shown what actually happens.

Sure, the Goa-Ould are acting out of fear and superstition, or are they? Maybe the Kelpians really ARE a terribly aggressive race, and the Goa-Ould, showing mercy, allowed them to survive despite that, creating a paradise for them, while they themselves live secretive lives, ensuring the survival of both species. Maybe, in a few years, when all the Goa-Ould are dead because the Kelpians, as it turned out, couldn't conrol their rage or thirst for revenge, Star Fleet will think back and say "Yeah, well, we shouldn't have interfered".

And the coming together part? No sir, there is just a Red Angel (which is a plot twist waiting to happen) who completely turns the situation around, and we don't hear a single word from the Goa-Ould, how they view the situation, what their plans are, and so forth. Maybe THEY will just genocide the Kelpians, as soon as the Enterprise leaves. Nobody actually talked to each other, nobody actually came to any understanding. Nobody even knows whats going on.

It is this same thing again that bugs me about Discovery, and that others have noted too: Superficially, it might resemble Star Trek. It even gives glimpses of some deeper thoughts. But in actuality, the music is just off. If you are far away, you hear the beat and some dominant tones, and you think "This sounds allright", and then you step closer, and you hear that it is actually a cacophony, where the right chords are overlaid by a dissonant, arythmical melody, that only generates emotions by being unpredictable and noisy, and then, after you have finished the episode and thought back on it a bit, all the chords and the melody blend together to some constant droning noise that contains no actual music anymore, even though all the frequencies are there.

For one moment in this episode, I can't recall exactly when, I felt like this is actually something deeper than flash and thunder, yet, after that brief moment, something happened that brought me back to reality. There are great opportunities for exploration here, and for moral dilemmas and the ever thrilling unknown. Yet it all ends with a stupid deus ex machina peace-through-superiour-firepower solution, and nothing is explored (just like season 1). It's a shame, really. The Expanse, season three especially, has so much more actual sci-fi, it is unbelievable. This would have been a fine Doctor Who episode, where you are just waiting for the Doctor to solve everybodies problem at the last second by some wishy-washy explanation, and everything is fine forever after.
Set Bookmark
Hank
Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 2:23pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: An Obol for Charon

@Gil: Don't forget that the stasis field was generated by the Sphere (so, by implication, requires a constant supply of energy), but was directed inwards to contain the explosion of set sphere and pushing Discovery free. The question is: What is supplying the energy to continue containing the explosion? And ... if it is a stasis field ... why can anybody on Discovery move? Do things resume on their path after the stasis field ends? Or does it just stop them? Which would make it a tractor beam? But they said it isn't? Or is it time dilation? But that wasn't mentioned either. But at least it can generate 100 GeV or somesuch in some conduit. I guess it has a reach of 10 billion plank lengths as well, can do the Kessel Run in less then 12 Parsecs and was created 100000 lightyears ago. It also produces a "metric fuckton" of energy, which is of course ironic, because the "imperial fuckton" would have been about 16kg heavier, but not as bad as the "short fuckton", which would have been 83kg lighter.

On another note: Nobody on Sarus home planet has had this "condition", refused to let himself get killed and noticed that his ganglia just fall off and he is now free of fear, ready to bamboozle the universe with his piratey antics, arrr? Or is Saru the first to experience this? In that case: Why? What is up with that condition anyways? Is it triggered by external circumstances? In which case you could genocide the planet by really scaring them? Which would have lead to their extinction long ago? Or is it some kind of Kelpian menopause which happens after a certain number of years? Why would predators wait until they get insane to slaughter them? Why where there four dense plots in one 50 minute episode? Sigh ...

Oh, and why, dear god, why is Discovery copying Orvilles horrendous, unfunny "I got an external esophagus" alien? Called Linus? Linus the ludicrous lanky Lizard? How did the argument between Stamets and the new engineer start? I missed that, they were just shouting at each other for no reason, somehow.

I must confess, it took me two tries to get through this episode, the first time I had to stop after Pike announced "Dalek don't like holographic communicator! DESTROY! EXTERMINATE! DESTROY!" as if THAT would fix the continuity issues. Next thing he says: "You know what? I want analog dials and christmas tree lights instead of this newfangled "translucent flatscreen" bullshit we have going on here. Let Star Fleet know that from now on, those are verboten! Make it so! Engage! Elementary! Oh, and those Klingons, I like them with less orclike features, can you please engineer a retrovirus to fix the retrovirus that was introduced off-screen to eliminate the retrovirus that fixed the continuity from ENT to TOS? Oh, and I want a green uniform! With gold! And all women are hereby only permitted to wear mini skirts!" See, you can have fun with Discovery, after all!
Set Bookmark
Hank
Sat, Feb 2, 2019, 6:12pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: A Happy Refrain

@SlackerInc: Well, I am pretty sure that they have another watch that can take over while they are going to dry themselves. Or you made a joke that completely flew over my head, in which case I didn't say anything. I feel a cold coming on and my brain ... is not even working well enough to think of a snappy "my brain is working like ... " joke.
Set Bookmark
Hank
Sat, Feb 2, 2019, 6:01pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Point of Light

@Booming: Thanks for elaborating, I really mixed everything up there.

@Elliott: What makes you think "we" are not calling out actual racists? And the "we" is all the people wrongly accused of racism. We have nothing in common but that (or at least nothing that we all know of). The "we" includes Artymiss, Dom and myself for example, and I am pretty sure that I am disagreeing with them more often than not (@Dom: I agree with what you wrote above, though). We don't belong to the same group, so I find it hard to see how we have any special obligation to call out racist fans (of which there are almost none on this board to call out anyways). I get your point, and it would make sense in another context, like right wingers actually disavowing racists in their parties, to "clean their own mess before critisizing others", so to speak, but in this case, there just isn't any "group identity" to the "we" beyond "We don't like certain Discovery characters".

@Chrome: I think that would have required a radically different story, though. The way it is set up, there is no way for Tilly not to immediatly try to locate May on Discovery, which leaves almost no time for organic flashbacks because Tilly actively tries not to think about it. If they had given it more time, Tilly could first have communicated with May over the computer, with May being on some Starbase. Then they share fond memories of the past, talk to each other, etc. Then, May says shes coming on board, and "arrives" with the next shuttle. Then Tilly can find out that May isn't really there. May would have had to have access to Tillys memories, though, which would have made Burnhams logical conclusion that May isn't in Tillys imagination but a real thing (which is, now that I think about it, a rather wild guess in the first place), impossible. Basically, they would have needed an whole episode to have the time to set up all this and resolve it in a somewhat decent manner. There's just too much story there for a simple side plot (that was started last season) to complete an arc in a few scenes.
Set Bookmark
Hank
Sat, Feb 2, 2019, 1:17pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Point of Light

@Jammer: Thanks, thats perfectly reasonable, and I agree. It might be helpful that you voiced your opinion on the original post. And that you don't police opinions is the main reason I come here.

@Booming & wolfstar: Yes, I know the underlying issues, and I might have mixed up those two cases. I might misremember, but in the American case, the original contention was that the gay couple wanted two men on top of the cake - which the owners argued was a political statement, since the marriage was sanctioned by the state, not the church, hence the political nature of the cake.
Set Bookmark
Hank
Sat, Feb 2, 2019, 12:16pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Point of Light

Thanks Mertov, I view it the same way.
Set Bookmark
Hank
Sat, Feb 2, 2019, 11:38am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Point of Light

@Jammer: I will do my best, but I'd be happy if you could condemn the sweeping generalizations of Stargazer as well. They might not have used as drastic language as I did, but I find them far more serious. Lets not forget that he started it all.

@Mertov: Okay, we have some basic misunderstandings here I think (which are probably my fault). Yes, I am claiming that Discovery is sufficiently different from the rest of the series to not really be Star Trek. Which isn't absurd, but my personal opinion on the matter.
Secondly, I am not saying that everything should be the same forever. Hence me listing different classical composers. Wagner is not the same as Mozart, is not the same as Bach, is not the same as Liszt. A piano sonata is not an Opera. But they are all classical, Cannibal Corpse is Death Metal, and you would not brand one thing as another and claim they are the same.
Thats what I mean by "The same thing". It is a really broad category of similarity, hence my whole spiel pointing out all that which is similar across all examples, including Cannibal Corpse. But at some point the differences are sufficient to warant a new category. We just have different views on where that should be.
Apes share 98 or so percent of their DNA with humans, the same as pigs. You say "But they are all mamals", I say "But that doesn't make a pig a human or a chimp".

So, with that, lets just agree to disagree.
Set Bookmark
Hank
Sat, Feb 2, 2019, 11:14am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Point of Light

Thanks, wolfstar, you are exactly right. We've had this discussion many times, and we have tried being civil over and over and over againt, and I frankly see no point in it anymore. I could have written a thousand word response detailing all my reasons, and it would just have been dismissed anyways (he already said he would do that). Maybe the problem is that we were too civil all along, and too forgiving. Maybe being angry isn't helpful, but so far, being civil has proven to not be helpful either, so it really doesn't matter.

I am legitimately angry. I am not faux-outraged over it. I am angry at this constant, endless accusation game. It is not a discussion, just like starting by saying "well, you are a cunt" is not an argument, and I honestly don't see why we should have a civil discussion with people who have only insults as arguments. It's not like Stargazer is stupid, or doesn't know how to behave, he purposefully chose to ignore the rules of engagement. And it doesn't matter if he is just trolling. I am tired of crybullies. You don't get to cry about uncivility if you can only shout "RACIST! MISOGYNIST! HOMOPHOBE!" over and over again. Maybe we should be the bigger persons. But I've got a short temper, and I tried that over and over again, to no avail. Maybe I am not the problem here at all. Maybe Stargazer should have been the bigger person to begin with.

@Henson: I think the problem is the internet itself. In reality, you get to see when you upset another person, and how the crowd reacts to your scornful accusations. On the internet, you just see whatever you want in every person you have a conversation with. It's perfectly demonstrated here: Stargazer wants everybody to be a racist, so he acts like everybody is. Evidence to the contrary is dismissed, as everybody on the internet is just a persona anyways; nobody can see behind the screen, and there are no consequences to what you have to say. Which is in a sense why the internet is great: You can express yourself unfiltered, and in turn, learn something about yourself.

At the same time, people like pleasure. It is far more pleasurable for me to agree with wolfstar, than to disagree with Booming (as we did over that past few days), so the most pleasing thing would be to surround myself with wolfstar and other people who agree with us than to go through the tedious process of arguing with Booming. Thats also precisely what you don't want to do, as your biases and convictions never get questioned. You cement your own point of view and dismiss the opposition first as wrong, then as idiots, and finally as the devil himself. Thats the reason for diminished tolerance.

At the same time, our times are polarized to a large degree. People who should be role models (or shouldn't be, but are used as those anyways) constantly behave like there is only good and evil, and you are either for us or against us. We are constantly told that the end times are near. On one side of the spectrum, radical feminism and muslims threaten to destroy the western world, on the other side, national socialists and racists are on the cusp of taking over. If you take the middle ground position, you have to defend your point of view against both sides, so most people just shut up and leave the discussion to the fringes.

The biggest problem is of course that everything is politicised. Why do companies produce political slogans in their advertisment? Why do you have to think a certain way to do a job, even though your job has nothing to do with politics? When did privacy become an outmoded concept? Children are holding political rallies. As does everybody else, to highlight which rights they want to have, which in turn only angers everybody else because they don't want you to have special treatment. Again, it doesn't matter if you are a pro lifer or belong to BLM, the pattern is always the same.

There is no facet of life that is not contentious in some way. And the media of course feeds off of the outrage. A baker not wanting to bake a certain cake is national news, igniting conflicts across America, and rallying people to both sides. And just by using this example, I will be put into certain corners, even though I just stated facts, without actually judging who is right or wrong in that case. Everything gets blown to extreme proportions, and that causes more harm than good in the end. Those bakers will not change their stance now, even if just to save face. They might have if they could have thought about it a little more, with a little introspection, but instead they were completely ostracised from one part of society. Same goes for the gay couple: They were made the figurehead of a political movement, and are now ostracised from a different part of society (or to a larger degree than previously), when in reality, all this was just about a stupid cake, when you get right down to it.

The gay couple could just have said: "You know what, I disagree with your stance, but I tolerate your point of view." and the bakers could have said "I don't disagree with you two getting married, but I tolerate it anyways, I just don't want to actively participate!" And then everybody would have tolerated each other a little bit, and maybe came to an understanding about the other person, and maybe changed their mind in the end. And again, I am not taking sides here, nor am I dismissing a certain point of view. Yes it is hurtful to hear that somebody considers your love a sin. It is just as hurtful to hear that you are a complete backwards moron and your whole family is evil, and you get blasted for that on national TV. But thats the point of tolerance: You let yourself get hurt a little, and the other person does the same, so that you don't actually hurt yourself seriously. It is neither easy nor pleasant, but necessary if we want to have an open society.

Now, the real crux of the matter is where we draw the line what should be tolerated. Thats where the battle is fought. And to get back to the original point of contention, I chose not to tolerate baseless accusations of racism anymore. In an ideal society, we would now all come together, hold hands, and agree on a certain threshold that everybody can live with, and we would all be a little unhappy about it, but thats life, and we would do that for every problem in society and then everybody would live mostly happily ever after. The problem is of course that not everything can be solved by compromise. Tibet can not be independent and part of China at the same time.

Sorry for the long post, but this topic isn't exactly easy to break down in a few sentences.
Set Bookmark
Hank
Sat, Feb 2, 2019, 8:42am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Point of Light

And don't you DARE spinning this along the lines that I am outraged because I secretly AM a racist!
Set Bookmark
Hank
Sat, Feb 2, 2019, 8:26am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Point of Light

@Mertov: Yes, you basically get it. Keep in mind, I only elaborated on a few things that I dislike in Discovery, the categories are not that rigid, and can be expanded almost indefinitely. And of course, everything I post is my personal view, as I said, the discussion is about degrees of difference, not absolute "If it does not have this, it is not that".

To explain my analogy: You can find a lot of things that Cannibal Corpse has in common with the rest of the people I listed. They all use the western music system, they can all be written as sheet music, they play arpeggios, dissonant chords, melodies, even the themes are somewhat interchangeable. Wagners Ring Cycle has plenty of rape, murder, abduction, betrayal, incest, more rape... Both classical musicians and Cannibal Corpse tell stories in their music, express emotions, try to cope with personal matters ... You can argue that they are very similar to one another. You can even like both. But if you listen to them one after another, you will hear and feel the stark break from "Claire de Lune" to "Fucked with a Knife". And that is really my whole point. To claim that they ARE the same thing, is just wrong, in my opinion, even though they share countless similarities. And of course this whole thing is feelings based, not scientifically provable on any level, or absolutely true one way or another. I just express my own, personal, subjective and emotional point of view on the matter.

@Stargazer: "And spare me your explanations, because nobody believes in your lies."
Just go fuck yourself. Seriously. I am sick and tired of this shit. It is not our fault that this series chose to focus mostly on women and does them badly. Who else is there? Tyler? Completely unsympathetic, weak and inconsequential character. Saru? Yeah, he's decent. Lorca? Ruined by plot twist. Who else? Oh yeah, Culber and Stamets. Culber is dead, Stamets is allright. Thats IT. Those are all the male characters that get more than five seconds of screentime. Oh yeah, forgot Pike, he's allright so far too. Oh and Pseudo-Sarek. Who completely butchered that character. But he is a hu-white MALE, so we must LOOOOVE him. Fuck you.

Seriously, all those people complaining about us "haters", who then proceed to call us racists, misogynists, homophoes and white supremacists and all kind of shit, should not wonder why we are getting more and more pissed. We are not running around shouting: "Oh, you like Burnham, but only because she's black, you obviously hate white men and want to smash the patriarchy and probably shout "WHITE GENOCIDE TONIGHT!" on rallies, and don't try to deny it, because we know that you are lying you scumback piece of shit!"

You complain that civil discussion is not possible anymore, well, guess why? Because YOU stop being civil. Racism is not a willy-nilly insult like "wanker", yet you throw it around like candy and I AM taking offence to it. I don't care if you base everything on skin colour and gender, but don't project that shit onto us just because we happen to dislike YOUR golden calf. If you don't want us to critisize female or minority characters, then tell the writers to either do them well or only cast white man, so that YOU can be happy in your whites-only show. Jesus fucking christ. And WE are the people who keep getting called bitter. You owe us all a fucking apology, and you should reflect really hard on what you said, why you said it and if you actually want to go through life with that kind of attitude, and where it will eventually lead you.
Set Bookmark
Hank
Fri, Feb 1, 2019, 10:49pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: A Happy Refrain

@SlackerInc: Ah, there lies our disagreement! I think that, contrary to most "almost human" AI characters, Isaac actually plays it straight: He really has no emotions and no desire to have them (or at least, not the capacity), which would actually be a pretty unexplored concept, so I just hope they are going down that path. But I understand where you are coming from, as that would be the "standard" thing to do: AI seems to be completely unlike us, but actually develops emotions naturally due to it's complex nature. Basically Data. Lets hope that we get something new and not Data 2.0

@William: Yeah, I was surprised by the absence of tone deaf moments, given Orvilles track record of tasteless jokes at the wrong moment.
Set Bookmark
Hank
Fri, Feb 1, 2019, 10:38pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Point of Light

@Tim C: And I am growing tired of constantly being accused of being a bitching, handwringing moral busybody and disgruntled nerd, without you understanding what I am actually saying.

"I *just* gave you four different broad categories that Star Trek can fit into,"
Yes, all examples of storylines, not tone. Now, to your "style" argument: Wagner, Beethoven, Brahms, Debussy, Mendelsohn, Schubert, Vivaldi, Cannibal Corpse. Do you get my point now?

"By your standards perhaps Hank"
Yes, which are called common sense. I'd rather not give an eight or ten year old kid nightmares because people are disembolwed and baby heads are thrown around. And I never said a single word about boobs. You are just under the illusion that I am a moral busybody, and are out to prove a point. Sad!

"Next time you're going to completely undermine your own point"
I am not, though. My point was that the violence was pointless. The whole Tyler plotline was pointless. Hence the violence contained within it was pointless. Next time, try to quote all the relevant parts and actually understand whats written.

"We've all seen this bitching before and it's just as tiresome now as it was then. "
Apparently not tiresome enough for you to not drag me into a discussion about precisely that topic.

@William: Thanks, you at least get it. You are right, the dumbing down is not unique to Discovery, but it does reach new heights. I have to disagree on one point though:
"and to say that something has to be a certain way to be Star Trek is problematic"
No it is not. If a produced a snuff porn movie and called it "Star Trek: The Undiscovered Fisting" we would not be having an argument. It is just a matter of degree and where everybody draws the line. Which is the crux of this whole debate.
Set Bookmark
Hank
Fri, Feb 1, 2019, 6:45pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Point of Light

@Tim C:
There are different shows for different niches. Star Trek has its niche, and you could watch it with your kids (until now). Vikings also has it niche, and I like that show, and they show violence on a whole different level. But because one show does this, another doesn't have to, and I can dislike that, can't I? If I want to listen to Cannibal Corpse, I am not bying a Wagner record. But if Cannibal Corpse now starts to only do 16 hour opera cycles, I can rightly say that "That ain't Cannibal Corpse anymore!" Because it is Wagner in disguise. I happen to really like Wagner. Doesn't mean that I don't want my Cannibal Corpse to sound like Cannibal Corpse. Same goes for Star Trek. Sure, maybe Gene Roddenberry wanted to create an ultra-brutal pornographic fuckfest - but he didn't. He created a cerebral, low violence show, which I happen to like. Does not mean that it has to stay the same forever, or that it is allowed to only tell certain stories, but if you take a hammer, melt it down, and make a saw out of it, it just ain't a hammer anymore. Sure, a saw is very useful, but you can not hit nails with it. If you made an axe instead, I might still be happy, because you can still hammer with it.

And, all those comparisons aside, that wasn't even my main point. My main point was that violence has to serve some purpose, otherwise its just fanservice, or gore-porn. Discoveries violence, even when viewed in isolation, is bad because it has no impact whatsoever. Neither on the characters, nor on me. I couldn't care less if a million Klingons exploded next episode, if rivers of blood flooded the Discovery, and everybody had an Event Horizon like snuff sex orgy, because it is all meaningless. The stories are a jumbled mess, and the violence is just there to "spice it up", to give some instant gratification. Same reason we have ultra-expensive special effects, with a million things on the screen. It is made to impress, and I am everything but. It is there to cover up all the flaws this show has, and to appeal to modern tastes, and I see right through it, and thats why its bad. And yes, Tylers storyline revolved around his traumatic, violent experiences. But that story sucked, and was itself pointless, so the violence was pointless as well.

Discovery is a bad show, and an especially bad Star Trek show, and yes, I do reserve the right to make that value judgement, or "Gatekeep" like you call it, because value judgements are what life is ultimately about. Take bread, for example. If somebody comes along an puts saw dust in your bread, that ain't real bread anymore. But if everybody would just go along and say "Ah well, it is just a new kind of bread!" we would be forced to eat shitty fake bread for the rest of our lifes. I am not a prude, nor am I against violence, I happen to like both a lot, but I know tasteless, shitty sawdust bread when I see it. I am not mad at you, by the way, I just like really polemic rhethoric.
Set Bookmark
Hank
Fri, Feb 1, 2019, 5:39pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: A Happy Refrain

@Slacker: But thats the point, really. He did not find "human love", he just had to do some programming work that barely qualifies as an analogy for love, and he could have ended it another way, but chose to rather continue his social experiment.

I guess future episodes might show which interpretation is right. But so far the Orville has mostly refrained from giving Isaac human attributes. It is mostly just characters in the show seeing something human in him, which is just projection.
Set Bookmark
Hank
Fri, Feb 1, 2019, 4:33pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Point of Light

@Chrome: I found it funny, because it was so hilariously out of place/character, and so badly done. I would have minded if it was a recurring occurrence, and not a one off glitch.

@William: As for the Borg Queen's death: Nah, didn't mind that very much. It was just a few seconds, no blood, and the Borg kinda justify extreme measures.

Anyways, that is all still orders of magnitudes different from what Discovery has done so far.

Oh, and regarding your previous post, and the bomb: I got a theory about that a few posts up (in jest, of course).
Set Bookmark
Hank
Fri, Feb 1, 2019, 4:26pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: New Eden

@Booming: No, I am not telling you to shut up, I am asking you to think again before you accuse somebody of some serious character flaw. I understood your argument, I disagree with it. Calling somebody fat or chubby (and it doesn't matter if we consider Tilly that, that's beside the point) has nothing to do with hatred of women in itself. It is not a pattern of misogyny. It is a pattern of dislike for fat people (or a pattern of stating the obvious, depending on your point of view). Tilly just happens to be a woman. If I was to call Sisko an idiot, it would not be a "pattern of racism" in itself. And he was chubby as well, btw. You MIGHT have a point if instead of saying "Sisko is an idiot", I said "Yeah, no wonder Sisko is an idiot", then you'd be justified to doubt my motivation. Well, Quincy explained it all already, but since brevity is the soul of wit:

-hating fat people is not the same as hating women
-hating one fat woman is not hatred of all women
-calling somebody "chubby" is not the same as calling somebody fat
-"fat shaming" is justified because being fat is unhealthy - otherwise anti-smoking ads are not justified (its my body, allright? And I am feeling beautiful with black lungs!), and are, in fact, hateful content. And I guess you are not willing to die on the "smoker-shaming" hill. And yes, I know that there are people with genetic defects, they are of course exempt.

Anyways, as fun as this was, from here on out we will just have to agree to disagree, if further disagreement persists. I think we both understand each others arguments, and I have nothing to add.
Set Bookmark
Hank
Fri, Feb 1, 2019, 3:45pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Point of Light

@William: Yes, that puts it more concisely. Discovery just escalates the violence randomly. There is no buildup, one scene Tilly is talking to fast and everybody stares in awkward silence, next scene we have Klingons exploding into gore, entrails on the floor and dead babies in a planter. And the next scene is "Look at us, we are the Federation, we are so awesome! We are amazing!" It is just tone deaf. After the Siege of ARR-588, Nog lost his leg and got a whole arc showing his recovery process. There was an actual reason to show violence in the first place.
Set Bookmark
Hank
Fri, Feb 1, 2019, 3:39pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: A Happy Refrain

We really do need an edit button...

@Quibbles: Funnily enough, I had short flashes of A Clockwork Orange when Isaac played Singin' in the Rain on the bridge ...
Set Bookmark
Hank
Fri, Feb 1, 2019, 3:37pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: A Happy Refrain

Surprisingly the first episode I actually found funny. I liked the Orville most when I ignored the humor, but this time around it actually worked. They (thankfully) avoided many stupid story developements (and there was plenty of opportunity to slip into Farlane-esque twelve-year-old humor), and the finale was just great. Contrary to expectation, Isaac did neither develop feelings (like Data would have) nor did he break up with her and go back to being like he was before (like Seven would have...), but he made an effort on his own because of his own reasons (the whole algorithm stuff), which is, in the end, what love is (among other things) about: Doing things for others even though it is an inconvenience. Dr. Finn knows that Isaac has no feelings for her, at least no human feeling, but she recognizes that he needs her, and I guess if Isaac does his best to fullfill her desires, it doesn't really matter in the end. She is happy, he is ... not terribly inconvenienced and gets to do his research, no harm done. I liked this far more than Datas respective adventure, because in his case, his girlfriend was convinced that he felt something for her, and was, of course, disappointed by the end. The arrangement that Dr. Finn and Isaac have could work out for them, at least for a while.

So, I'd give this episode 3 Stars, because I was entertained the whole time and didn't facepalm, and there is actually something to think about in it. I do hope though, that we see something a little more exciting next time. Like, a dead alien world, where theres lots of archeology to do, with crazy technology and conundrums, but no shooting.
Set Bookmark
Hank
Fri, Feb 1, 2019, 3:19pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Point of Light

@Artymiss: Regarding violence on Discovery: For me personally, it is not a matter of absolute degree of violence, but of the thing that Star Trek is supposed to be. It just feels out of place here, and yes, there are previous instances where Trek has shown blood (Unidscovered Country) and disfigurement (every second Voyager episode had some horrible illness), but this style of "gore" just doesn't lend itself well to Trek. It is just there for visual spectacle, it has no real meaning behind it. Star Trek of the past was mostly allegorical or metaphorical - even the violence was just stylized, much like in an Opera, because it was the bigger picture that counted, which does not seem to be the case anymore.
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2019 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.