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: 1,085 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 44
Set Bookmark
Rattrap Maximize!
Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 8:31pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S3: Extinction

This was the worst hour of Star Trek I've ever sat through. No, I'm not exaggerating -- The worst. Zero stars. No, scratch that. -2 stars.

It was uncomfortable watching reasonably talented actors run around like neanderthals in an utterly unnecessary episode. Apparently, designing a virus which can turn an alien into one of your people by literally rewriting their DNA and booting up a copy of your species' brainwaves is so easy a caveman can do it.

"Pretty laughable really, when those same folks have accepted Warp drive, replicators, transporters and sub-space communications as gospel for 50 years."
- Yanks

I don't think this is a sensible comparison. Warp drive and transporters are a founding conceit, without which we wouldn't have Star Trek. I mean, we *might*, but we'd have to sub in cryostasis ships/generation ships and shuttlepods. But I'm getting away from my real point which is:

Warp drive and transporters, while obviously not real, are somewhere on the very fringes of speculative science. We may never have those technologies -- they may, in fact be entirely impossible. *However*, we don't know that yet, and there are actual, real physicists who are entertaining the thoughts. Replicators are just a variation on transporters.

Subspace -- okay. There's no such real hypothetical that I'm aware of. Maybe you could say it's just another name for extra dimensions/bubble universe theory, which is also somewhere on the fringe of speculative science.

Point is, I (and apparently millions of Trek fans) are willing to suspend disbelief when the science seems at least somewhat plausible.

Rewriting DNA, and suddenly undergoing extreme physiological changes (altered bone structure, extreme hair growth within seconds, altered respiratory system [sudden gills],) is simply not plausible. Not even the fringes of biology (to the extent that I'm familiar) has *any* speculative science to support the idea that a virus/pathogen could literally turn you into a different species, write new data (language, memories, personhood etc) to your brain, radically re-engineer your respiratory, circulatory, and/or nervous systems, do so within minutes, AND somehow leave enough of your previous body/identity intact so as to return FULLY back to normal with the simple injection of an antidote?

That's not how biology works. That's not even how biology *could* work. If you make sudden, massive edits to a person's DNA, they get cancer and die.

Things like warp drive and transporters are a plausible --even if just on a fringe level-- conceit that allows Star Trek to exist. The completely asinine 'Extinction', 'Threshold', and 'Genesis' ideas on biology are the stuff of saturday morning cartoons (I should know, see my username).

I like saturday morning cartoons. But Star Trek isn't --and shouldn't!-- be a saturday morning cartoon. Not the live-action, mainline canon series, anyway.

Star Trek should ask sensible, compelling questions. Or even fringe-sensible, but still compelling questions. This asked neither. This is dreck.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 8:30am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: The Road Not Taken

While I understand the reasons for the move to hulu, I don't like what it might do to the show.

I really hope we won't see any sharp turn for the worse in the show's storytelling in season 3. I know the Orville is Seth's pet project and that he has a specific vision for it, but I can't shake the feeling that something is going to go horribly wrong with this move to streaming.

Here's to hope that my gut feeling gets proven wrong.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 7:13am (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S1: Fight or Flight

@Chess

Hoshi whole-heartedly agrees with you :-)

As for your question:

"Fight and Flight" is not a beginning of some trend.

The vast majority of Enterprise episodes do not feature such disturbing imagery. However, like every Trek series before it, Enterprise gives us many different types of stories. So if you are sensitive to this kind of thing, there will probably be a few episodes that would trouble you.

Then again, this is nothing new to Enterprise. There are quite a few episodes of TNG that have a similar level of visual nightmare fuel. Picard's torture in "The Chain of Command". The body horror in "Genesis". If you managed to soldier through these difficult parts of TNG and VOY and DS9, you shouldn't have any problem with Enterprise.

By the way:

While ENT gets *darker* in season 3, it does not get any gorier. Think of the Dominion War Arc from DS9, which managed to get quite dark without going out-of-line with the visual imagery.
Set Bookmark
Rattrap Maximize!
Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 9:27pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S3: The Xindi

So. I actually *liked* the opening song for the first two seasons. I know, I know. But this weird island remix? That's not a good thing. That's bad.

I love the MACOs. It's incredibly refreshing to *finally* have a platoon of appropriately trained and equipped infantry on a Starfleet ship.

On a slight tangent from the above; It's always been a bone of contention of mine that Starfleet tries so hard to define itself as a non-military force, despite being THE arm of the Federation which conducts every military activity, up to and including total war.

Every Starfleet vessel should be staffed with MACOs from ENT through VOY and beyond. It makes absolutely no sense to fly headlong into deep, unknown, often hostile space, relying on a frankly insufficient "security team" for the inevitable combat scenarios.

My only fear with the MACOs is that they're being deliberately setup as a sort of 'thematic effigy' to be burned at the alter of 'Gene Roddenberry's Vision™', and will eventually be revealed to be stereotypically 'military jock bully' types. This will be used to show how 'enlightened' and 'superior' the non-military, pacifist, Starfleet Way is in comparison.

Maybe they won't do this. I really hope they don't do this.

On a related note, I *really* can't stand Reed. The guy has such an aggressive, overbearing inferiority complex, it's insane. It really feels like every time he opens his mouth, it's to whine, complain, or fish for sympathy. It's absolutely grating. His unilateral measuring contest with Maj. Hayes over who should do what on the rescue mission was immature to the point of being unprofessional. I'm glad T'Pol agreed with Hayes.

Speaking of T'Pol, let's talk about THAT scene. No, not the not-sex-but-Trek-sex scene with Trip, but rather the earlier scene with Phlox. The scene that somehow *no one* is talking about.

I have the utmost respect for Phlox. He might just be my favorite character so far. But, the hell?! His pressuring T'Pol into committing a very intimate act with a crewmate was plain unsettling. I get that Denobulan (and Vulcan, for that matter) ethics aren't necessarily in lockstep with human ethics, but T'Pol and Trip were *both* clearly uncomfortable with the idea, yet Phlox pressed on anyway. He both pressured T'Pol into the act, and lied to Trip about a treatment, so as to set up the encounter.

I *get* that he wanted to help Trip relax, so he can focus and perform while on the job, but really. Would he pressure Sato into having sex with Reed, to help him get over himself? Because that's essentially what he did. This feels unprofessional, unethical, and wrong. Maybe it could almost work if the whole Xindi situation became incredibly desperate, urgent, and dire, but this is literally the beginning of the arc. We're not there yet.

As an aside to T'Pol, sexuality, and feminism -- I find it interesting that during TOS, it was considered a show of sexual liberation and female agency, that women could wear somewhat... accentuating attire. From TNG through ENT, however, dressing this way developed a presumption of sexual objectification.

Having said that, I also do believe that there was a concerted effort (from B&B? The network?) to overly sexualize T'Pol (and Seven before her), and it would have been gratifying to see T'Pol switch to a Starfleet uniform in this episode.

The prison break was... eh. The MACO shootout was enjoyable, largely because of how cathartic it is to see a competent combat team at work in the Star Trek universe.

But seriously -- enough with the kidnapped/imprisoned captain. The one time it worked, there were four lights.
Set Bookmark
Captain EddieD
Mon, Aug 5, 2019, 9:00pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S4: Little Green Men

Been watching this with jet lag and I keep falling asleep, and have now seen the first two acts like 30 times. And I still love it!
Set Bookmark
Chappity
Tue, Jul 2, 2019, 11:57pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S2: Future Tense

What mystifies me about this episode:

Once Trip got the beacon working on the mysterious craft from the future, the location of the ship would have been known throughout all time.

...So, why couldn't the people in the future simply reach back just a little further and retrieve the vessel even before the Suliban or the Enterprise found it? After all, they had a fix on its general location and point of existence in time, so it should not be particularly hard to extrapolate its location a day or so prior to that...

???
Set Bookmark
unhappening
Sun, Jun 30, 2019, 11:18am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S6: Profit and Lace

everyone needs to relax on this one... i disagree on jammer's dislike of ferengi eps... i usually add a star to each vs his but yes this one is bad and so what? watch it with that in mind like spocks brain or star trek 5 or masks from tng... have fun and get on with it. sometimes the bad ones are interesting to deconstruct. and read up on how it all came together... the goal and the end result were two different things. it also doesn't help to retroactively assign modern pc sensibilities to 20 plus year old shows or movies. ferengi's in general were awful towards women though they didn't see it that way.
Set Bookmark
Capt. Ahab of Moby Dick
Thu, Jun 6, 2019, 3:09pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: Silicon Avatar

Bears & wolves are supposed to be "intelligent" beings. Yet, if one of them strays into a human dwelling & kills people (because of sheer hunger, not malice), it is promptly hunted down. Is there a moral dilemma about the "right of predators to eat people"?

Well, anyway... got to go hunt down that White Whale... ;-p
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 7:28pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: Galaxy's Child

@Jason
"Kissed him? Huh? I don't remember that part. I do recall her rubbing his back briefly and making the oft repeated statement about the engine being her or something."

FWIW They did kiss at the end of "Booby Trap". But taking that scene in isolation is taking it out of context.


@Booming
"Ok, let's just assume the computer turns female holodeck characters into willing objects and Geordie is not to blame for that behavior."

A willing object of what, exactly? Just what do you think happened between Geordi and Holo-Leah?

In "Booby Trap" we've seen them work together in a race against the clock to solve an engineering problem. Yes, there was also a flirtatious undertone, but it was never the emphasis of the simulation. Nor, might I add, did it interfere with their work. Those scenes just gave the impression of two friends working together and having a wonderful chemistry with one another.

In short, I don't see any problem with Geordi continuing to use the original program. He really felt a genuine connection - both professional and personal with the character he was working with.

Doesn't excuse what he did when the real Leah came along, but there was absolutely nothing wrong with what he did in the original program.

"You again ignore that he uses his special knowledge about her several times to impress her (favorite food, hairstyle, her feelings about her work) he also lies to her about it."

I agree it was wrong of him to do that.

But let me tell you a secret: When I was young and stupid, I did similar things and thought it made me really clever. This is exactly the kind of thing that young socially-inept people sometimes do, simply because they are so clueless.

I assure you that I was never a stalker and never treated people (male or female) as objects. I was simply an idiot who was completely oblivious to the basic rules of proper social interactions.

Of-course, today I know better, and I cringe to think about the stuff I did back then. But my point is, that creeps and perverts are not the only people who might pull a stunt like that. And Geordi strikes me as precisely the kind of person who would fall into this trap without any malicious intent.

Doesn't make him any less wrong, of-course. But intent does matter.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 5:44pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S1: The Cloud

I'm currently in the middle of a 3rd rewatch of Voyager. It's quite enjoyable, actually. Not sure why there's so much hate for that show.

Sure, Voyager didn't really live to its premise and its potential. But that doesn't make it a bad series.

(same can be said about Enterprise, by the way)
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, Jun 2, 2019, 5:06pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S3: Sacred Ground

Oof... keyboard problems.

Continuing my post about Chakotay:

If he seemed offended, it's probably because of Janeway's insincere attitude toward the whole thing. As a spiritual person, it must have driven him nuts to see her jumping through all these crazy hoops while completely missing the point.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, Jun 2, 2019, 5:03pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S3: Sacred Ground

Gotta say, that as a person who is both a rationalist and a theist, I appreciated what this episode was trying to do.

But I also agree with Luke that it looked like the story was written by a person who never actually *experienced* these dilemmas first hand. It's like the writers understood the point intellectually, but didn't have the personal experience required to bring that point to life.

As a result, the episode falls a bit flat.

@Trish
"He seemed practically offended the whole time by the captain's willingness to throw herself into an alien spiritual rite, almost as if he thought, 'If she won't convert to my religion, which is the one and only REAL one, then why is she embracing these stupid and dangerous alien superstitions?' "

I
Interesting.

You're right that Chakotey seems pretty miffed about the whole thing. But I d

The "My religion is the only true one" thing sounds completely out-of-character to me. That's not the Chakotay we know.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, May 29, 2019, 9:29am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S7: Take Me Out to the Holosuite

I know next to nothing about hockey, but "puck goes in goal, numbers goes up" seems perfectly clear to me. You can't get any simpler than "when X hits Y, you score a point".

Baseball is far more complicated to a casual observer. Though I gotta say this: This episode is a pretty good tutorial for understanding the basics of the game (and I say this as someone who had virtually no knowledge of how baseball works before watching).
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, May 26, 2019, 4:38pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S3: Darkling

A rugged pilot is sitting in a bar, telling tall tales about a monster of planetary size, and you find the fact that his story doesn't conform to Newton's laws infuriating?

I'll be the first to admit that Star Trek occasionally makes scientific errors (just like any other sci fi series) but the example you've chosen to complain about is a complete non-issue.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, May 26, 2019, 7:39am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S5: Rapture

@Luke

Well, to be perfectly fair, Gene *as a person* most definitely wouldn't have approved of this episode. He had quite a big blind spot when it came to the topic of religion, which DS9 - I think - mostly handled in a mature and balanced fashion.

But I agree with you that this isn't really relevant. Roddenberry gave us this grand optimistic vision for an inclusive diverse future, and his personal anti-religious views are simply not consistent with his greater vision. We shouldn't be stuck with this inconsistency just because Roddenberry himself is oblivious to it.

@Adam
"It is not optimistic, but rather pretty depressing that hundreds of years from now, belief without evidence is held in such high regard"

After everything we've seen the prophets do in the past 4 seasons, how can you call Sisko's stance "belief without evidence"?

The wormhole aliens exist, and they have an intimate relationship with Bajor. They also have a personal relationship with Sisko, who experienced it first-hand.

What more evidence do you want?

@Peter
"To me one of the most illogical things in this series is the continued skepticism on Starfleet's part that the Prophets *don't* have these capabilities, given all the evidence to the contrary."

It's even worse than that.

Starfleet insists on completely ignoring a powerful alien species that has a close relationship with Bajor, WHILE THEY'RE TRYING TO GET BAJOR TO JOIN THE FEDERATION.

How does this make any kind of sense?
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Fri, May 24, 2019, 9:31am (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S3: The Tholian Web

Yeah, Turnabout Intruder is an awful note to go out on.

This is one of the reasons I prefer to view TOS in stardate order rather than production order. "All Our Yesterdays" is a far better episode to end the series with.

This is even truer for the remastered version, which added a CGI view of the star going nova as the final scene. It's a wonderful breathtaking shot, which lets you go out with bang.
Set Bookmark
Hapleha
Thu, May 23, 2019, 12:33am (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S1: Dear Doctor

Amazing Episode.

I read all the comments and it was, mostly, very interesting. I feel like it is one of the rare episode were the subject was too vast for a TV show and certainly for one episode.
I love the a/b plot structure of classic trek - so far Entreprise did not use it enough, whilst Orville is becoming a master of it - but, as someone noted before, the B plot may have taken too much time for a clear exposition of the dilemma at hand.

Dilemma is the keyword. Many here have oversimplified the topic by saying it was only a matter of giving help or not.
The strength of this script is that it never tried to show a biased vision of this new world. Too many time in Star Trek the point of view of the captain (and the viewer) is quickly shown as a very simple very basic social issue that the mighty Starfleet will try to resolve in a few days. For this to work, the writer make the conundrum simple by exaggerating the divisions and the arguments of each belligerent. DS9 was at his best when dealing with Bajoran politics and the complexity of the situation because they took the time to expose it.

Here, it would have been very easy for the writers to help our candide captain by making the dominant species vile, ill-intended or more clearly supporters of slavery. The script could have shown a immediate and certain bad side effect of the so called “cure” but they use no shortcuts. The letter structure allowed a clear, even distant, description of the situation by a non-human point of view almost like an omniscient narration.

In my humble opinion, the situation should have been presented this way: Is it the Entreprise right to alter the DNA of an entire species, even at their demand? The rules of self-determination are of no use here because the aliens are not developed enough to do the alterations themselves and understand the consequences. The rules for genetics modifications in the Federation are the result of a war and decade of thinking.Amazing Episode.

I read all the comments and it was, mostly, very interesting. I feel like it is one of the rare episode were the subject was too vast for a TV show and certainly for one episode.
I love the a/b plot structure of classic trek - so far Entreprise did not use it enough, whilst Orville is becoming a master of it - but, as someone noted before, the B plot may have taken too much time for a clear exposition of the dilemma at hand.

Dilemma is the keyword. Many here have oversimplified the topic by saying it was only a matter of giving help or not.
The strength of this script is that it never tried to show a biased vision of this new world. Too many time in Star Trek the point of view of the captain (and the viewer) is quickly shown as a very simple very basic social issue that the mighty Starfleet will try to resolve in a few days. For this to work, the writer make the conundrum simple by exaggerating the divisions and the arguments of each belligerent. DS9 was at his best when dealing with Bajoran politics and the complexity of the situation because they took the time to expose it.

Here, it would have been very easy for the writers to help our candide captain by making the dominant species vile, ill-intended or more clearly supporters of slavery. The script could have shown a immediate and certain bad side effect of the so called “cure” but they use no shortcuts. The letter structure allowed a clear, even distant, description of the situation by a non-human point of view almost like an omniscient narration.

In my humble opinion, the situation should have been presented this way: Is it the Entreprise right to alter the DNA of an entire species, even at their demand? The rules of self-determination are of no use here because the aliens are not developed enough to do the alterations themselves and understand the consequences. The rules for genetics modifications in the Federation are the result of a war and decades of thinking.

I agree with those who said that the destiny of this planet is certainly not over once the Entreprise left. We know that everything that happens on a Starfleet starship is studied and scrutinized by the hierarchy and acadamy and it is certainly truer for the flagship and only deep space ship. Archer just decided that he was not capable to make a immediate and world-changing decision and took a temporary one.

P.s.: Apologies for the uncertain grammar, English is not my native language.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, May 19, 2019, 3:08pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

@Dom

"There's a difference between allowing fans to have their criticisms and those criticisms being constructive and leading to productive discussion. I believe strongly fans can and should be allowed to say whatever they want about a show and not attacked. At the same time, while I respect their right to disagree, that doesn't mean I have to respect their argument."

I completely agree on both counts.

One thing that drives me crazy, though, is that many people tend to have double standards on this. If it's someone they disagree with, they judge every word in the most negative light. But if it's someone who shares their own opinion, they'll let almost everything pass under their radar.

This is hypocritical, and it isn't conductive at all to having an honest discussion.

"I do worry about a world in which these corporations deliberately whip up fans of their works to shout down fans who are more critical. I think we already saw a bit of that with The Last Jedi, which was a PR disaster."

CBS did the same thing with the first season of Discovery, and it was no less of a PR disaster. It was that, more than anything, that turned me away for good.

You wanna know how to treat your fans? Watch how they do it with the Orville. Both Seth and his production team are doing everything they can to make us feel comfortable. They even come to fan forums and have discussions with us on a regular basis. They are practically treating us as their friends.

It's just heartwarming... and quite refreshing, after the dog-eat-dog vibe I was constantly getting from CBS. What can I say? Thank God for the fact that we have free competition in the entertainment industry.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, May 18, 2019, 9:06pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

@Mertov

When I said "snippets", I was referring to your use of phrases like ""It's not Star Trek" and "soap opera" and "killing the franchise" while completely ignoring the actual points that were being made by the people you're so eager to make fun of.

And yes, I say "us" because you've chosen to ridicule an entire group of people with your unfair comparison.

"What is this urge of yours to group people together and pit them against one another?"

On the contrary.

As far as I'm concerned, there are no camps here. I have absolutely no quarrel with the fans of Discovery. It might come as a shock to you, but I have this crazy belief that people are free like or dislike whatever shows they want for whatever reasons they want.

What I do have problem with, is people who choose to mock and ridicule and erect strawmen instead of having an honest discussion. Especially people who do this on a constant on-going basis.

"Quit the drama for once, and let it go"

So you want the last word, eh?

No problem. I've already said everything that needs to be said. Enjoy.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhiw
Sat, May 18, 2019, 8:03pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

@Mistah Datah

"Maybe, although Roddenberry has gone on the record saying TOS is non-canon versus TNG. He was trying to do the show he wanted to do, and didn't mind stepping on TOS when it suited him."

Can you give a single example from TNG that "stepped on TOS"?

"I'm confused, is this hyperbole? I've watched Discovery and don't feel mocked."

I wasn't talking about Discovery itself. I was talking about what CBS did in the year before the show debuted and during the first season.

"I think Roddenberry would be dissatisfied because he spent considerable effort trying to distance TNG from TOS. "

Exactly.

He was trying to *distance* TNG from TOS, which is a very different thing from trying to override TOS or somehow overturn it.

That's why he set TNG a century further in the future. That way he could pretty much tell any stories he wanted without worrying too about previous continuity.

It worth noting, though, that Roddenberry could have easily introduced deliberate contradictions with TOS, had he wanted to do invalidate the older show. He didn't do that. So regardless of his opinions on whether TOS should be regarded as canon, he had enough respect for his older material to leave it alone.

"But for Roddenberry, TNG's success meant giving up the TOS model and try a more diplomatic, conflict-free future."

Huh?

Roddenberry always said that TNG was the way he wanted to do Star Trek in the first place. That was his vision of the future. What does "TNG's success" have to do with it (and how can a show's success retroactively influence the way it was conceived from day 1)?

I also maintain that TNG and TOS are far closer in spirit than you're claiming. Sure, the style is somewhat different, but the themes are the same: Both shows are about a better future for humanity. Both shows are about exploring the unknown. Both shows have inspired many young people to become engineers or scientists.

Also, there's a huge difference between the actual creator of a show making a few changes after 3 low-budget seasons, and a mega-corp making massive changes after 28 seasons of creating a detailed rich fictional world.

In short: No, comparing the TNG situation in 1987 to what's going on with Discovery today, doesn't make much sense.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, May 18, 2019, 6:34pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

@Mertov
"LOL, it's the same franchise (Star Trek), same fan base (Trekkies), and even the mottos in the hate-rhetoric are the same ("It's not Star Trek," "soap opera," "killing the franchise")."

Is that your usual way of having discussions? Taking snippet phrases out of context and completely ignoring the actual issue at hand?

How about actually addressing the points that the detractors of DSC have raised? How about trying to have an actual honest discussion for a change, instead of constantly looking for ways to trap your "opponents" in some kind of "Gotcha"?

(who am I kidding...)
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, May 18, 2019, 6:06pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

@Alcoremor
"If a show is flawed, let's focus on the flaws, without using the royal we's (not to mention the strident tone and ad hominem attacks, as if to simplly disagree with someone is to insult the core of their existence)"

Interesting comment. Can you give a single example of a Discovery detractor who is using ad hominem attacks against the fans of Discovery?

Because I can give you dozens of examples that go the other way. We've been accused of being misogynist and of being racist. We've been attributed ridiculous strawman opinions, while the actual content of our posts was completely ignored (my "favorite" is the attempt to paint us as some continuity fanatics who nitpick the tiniest things and expected Discovery to have '60s-style cardboard sets).

And then there's Mertov comment and yours. Please enlighten us: What point could your comments possibly serve, except trying to paint people like Dom and Trent and myself in a ridiculus light? You've responded to none of our points. You haven't even *acknowledged* any of our points. You just compared us to a group of crazy narrow-minded fans from 30 years ago, without giving a shred of evidence that this comparison is justified in any way.

So who is doing the generalizations here? Who is doing the ad-hominem attacks?

Not me, that's for sure.

And let me tell you another thing:

These constant unfair attacks by people who call themselves Trek fans, is part of the reason I'm no longer a fan. As if the issues I have with the show itself aren't enough, posts like yours constantly remind me why I don't want to be part of this fandom anymore. What used to be a lovable geeky fandom has turned into an Orwellian nightmare, where claiming that black is white is the norm.

@Booming
"Who trashed the fans or the critical fans to be precise??"

You're right. Obviously, this kind of cr*p never ever happens. My mistake. :-P
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Fri, May 17, 2019, 7:48am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

Oops... That was supposed to be:

"And while I agree that the first season of TNG/DS9 weren't exactly masterpieces, I think they *weren't* terrible. Sure, "Code of Honor" is terrible..."
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Fri, May 17, 2019, 2:03am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

@Dom

I actually liked "Move Along Home" :-)

And while I agree that the first season of TNG/DS9 weren't exactly masterpieces, I think they were terrible. Sure, "Code of Honor" is terrible. But most episodes were okay, and quite a few were really good ("11001001", "Duet", "Elementary, Dear Data").

At any rate, even those who think that the first season of TNG stunk, cannot deny that this show respected the source material from the start. It didn't start by trampling all over previous continuity. It didn't put up a huge sign that says in red letters "LOOK! We are doing everything differently just because we can!".

The TNG team also didn't spent nearly two years mocking their target audience and running a huge campaign to discredit anyone who values consistent worldbuilding and intelligent story-telling.

So really, comparing the Trekkie backlash to TNG with the Trekkie backlash to Discovery is nothing short of ridiculous.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, May 16, 2019, 8:20am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S2: The Child

@Booming

You're too smart and too sensitive a person to actually believe what you just wrote.

I've noticed a trend in the stuff you wrote in the past day or so. You've become more and more confrontational while also making less and less sense. I guess you're in one of those "I'm bored and life sucks so I'm going to troll Jammer's site with random provocative musings" phases, aren't you?

Pity. I was really starting to enjoy our conversations in the past few days.
Next ►Page 1 of 44
▲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.