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: 1,149 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 46
Set Bookmark
Tue, Dec 3, 2019, 3:53pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S1: Angel One


Where did you get "Omni" from? It's OMIcron Theta after the greek letters (and Data's home planet). There's no N in there.

"I meant it more in a way that the motherly role was a pretty standard role for women on TV back then so TNG wasn't really pushing boundaries but stayed somewhat within them."

Only after reading your last comments, did I realize that TNG deserves high praise for giving us a woman character who (a) happens to be a mother and (b) isn't defined by that trait.

It's certainly more impressive (and more natural) then giving us some kind of "strong woman archetype" character.

"Come on... she is the chief medical officer and the show had 178 episodes."

Exactly. Not only Crusher had - indeed - saved the ship and/or solved the episode's mystery in multiple occasions, but she also holds such an important role that you actually *expect* her to do these things.

Not exactly a point in your argument's favor, is it?

Though I'm beginning wonder if you even *have* a serious argument at all, or whether you're just arguing for the sake of arguing to elevate your boredom.

When you write something like this:

"More debate, silly! :D"


"Do we have to make an analysis about how many times women saved the ship and how many times men did? And then correlate that with how many times women almost destroyed the ship?? Will this madness never end?! :D"

It becomes increasingly difficult to believe that you're discussing the issues in good faith.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Dec 1, 2019, 1:49pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S1: Angel One


"At this point I realize that I write all this just to not do any actual work"

Ah. A noble cause, I see. ;-)

"The empirists have basically won the battle for the soul of the social sciences which means that sociologists and political scientists avoid making value judgements. So no good or bad."

Fair enough.

But my question was less about a making a moral judgement, and more about reaching ANY kind of meaningful conclusion.

I mean, what could an empiricist say here, besides "the analysis proves [with a confidence level of - say - 99%] that the men in the show talk more/less about romance than the women in the show"?

In other words: What would be the actual *point* of such an exercise? If we already know in advance that the numbers won't really tell us anything meaningful, why even bother?


Sorry, I thought you were ranking the characters in order of importance and put the two women at the bottom.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Dec 1, 2019, 12:52pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S3: The Defector

It was the hippy ideal.

This is also why the Enterprise-D could do a saucer-seperation: You could get the civilians to safety in the saucer while the stardrive section enters the thick of the action.

Unfortunately TPTB quickly found out that (a) they can't afford showing a saucer-seperation in every second episode and (b) it was too cumbersome to work as compelling TV on a regular basis.

So the whole thing was mostly dropped after the first few episodes, even though the children and families remained. Hence the crazy situation we've ended up with, where a starship that goes into battle every Tuesday is doing it with hundreds of civilians onboard.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Dec 1, 2019, 5:42am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S6: Profit and Lace

Rough stuff?

Gotta say, I can't help but laugh whenever someone "accuses" Star Trek of going the Social Justice route, or starts whining about strong women that are giving men orders. Seriously, did this guy live under a rock in the past 50 years, that he doesn't know what Trek is all about?

From a 24th century perspective, this "rough stuff" is just laughable. "Hey bro, what's a primitive guy like you doing on our shiny starship? Oh, and by the way, welcome to the 24th century" ;-)
Set Bookmark
Sun, Dec 1, 2019, 5:38am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S1: Angel One

@Jason R.

"In no conceivable way can this be called 'balanced'."

True, but is this due to TNG's attitude toward women? Or simply due to the nature of a show as a (mostly) non-ensemble show?

Picard, Data and Worf get most of the attention because they are the most interesting characters. And I certainly don't agree with your claim that Geordi or Wesley are more important characters than Crusher or Troi. They are all secondary characters. Heck, I'll argue that Guinan - even if she gets less screen time - is a more important character than Geordi.

(I also disagree with the notion that Riker is more a important character than Crusher or Geordi. Sure, he is the ship's first officer, but as a TV CHARACTER he is no more important)

Now, let us be perfectly clear: I'm not pretending that the "big three" being all males is just a coincidence. I'm perfectly aware that the general view of female TV roles in the 1980's played a part in this decision.

But my point is, that you could never deduce that just from what we see on screen. Crusher may be a less important character, but the material she gets is mostly well-rounded. She participates in away missions, solves science problems, and does all kinds of other things that lay rest to the claim that she is anything but an equally capable member of the Enterprise's crew.

And again, TNG gives us plenty of female guest characters who also serve to strengthen the idea that the inequality in numbers in the main cast is just a statistical fluke in-universe. We've seen plenty of female captains and admirals. We've also seen women participating in pretty much every cultural role under the sun, both in the Federation and on alien planets.

So when you take all this into account, I think TNG aged quite well in this respect. At least for the most part. I won't go as far as claiming that TNG's attitude toward women is 100% perfect, but it certainly isn't as bad as some people here claim.

"Just from my anecdotal and maybe skewed memory, I seem to definitely recall a couple of 'girl talk' scenes between Troi and Crusher about romance, and I just don't remember any about anything else. If there were some then they were forgettable in the sense that I literally forgot about them"

Of-course they were forgettable. What would you expect?

They were discussions about the situation on the ship, or medical problems, or other things like that. IOW they were conversations of the most routine and ordinary kind imaginable.

Isn't that what people are usually after, when they complain that women characters are only given "girly" stuff to discuss?

I suspect the Troi/Crusher girly talks would have also been forgettable to you, had you not immediately flagged them as a problem. I confess that I couldn't remember a single one of those scenes before I did my search. I was actually surprised to see that there were as many as six of them over the show's run.

(I did remember the Ogawa/Crusher ones, and I have absolutely no problem with them)

"I would like to have a look at your method. ;) First what search terms were used or did you go through all the conversations and the really interesting comparison would be between a female and a male pair."

I looked through them all (searching for "TROI:" and "CRUSHER:" and "OGAWA:") and counted the "talks about boys" manually.

"If the percentage of romantic conversations between for example La Forge and Riker is as high as between Troy and Crusher then we really have something."

This is a pretty silly comparison.

First of all, you're going to be hard-pressed to find ANY kind of intimate conversation between La Forge and Riker. They just aren't that close as friends.

Secondly, let's say we did such a comparison between all male/male conversations and all female/female conversations that ever occured in TNG. What would it prove?

Suppose we've found that the women talk about boys 22% of the time, and the men talk about girls only 7% of the time.

What conclusion would you reach from that? Perhaps we need more macho talk about women to balance the numbers out? ;-)

Now think of the reverse:

Say we found that men talk about girls 22% of the time, but the women talk about boys only 7% of the time.

What would your conclusion be this time? There's still a big difference between the numbers, but now it's in the other direction. So is that good or bad?

There's little point in doing a statistical test which isn't going to teach us anything meaningful either way.
Set Bookmark
Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 1:25pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S1: Angel One

"Actually I completely agree with Carmen that Troi/Crush and Crusher/Ogawa talk about little else other than boys, and it sucks. I've complained about that before and IMO it's totally legit."

Opinion is opinion. The question is: What are the facts?

I've taken the liberty of scanning through the transcripts of every single TNG episode for such conversations, and you know what I've found? That Crusher and Ogawa had exactly two conversations on boys (in "Imaginary Friends" and "Lower Decks"). Troi and Crusher had six, which is precisely once every season (not counting season 2 where Crusher was absent).

And along the way of searching for these matches, I've found many chats on other topics. Getting an exact count of these would depend on what, precisely, we count as a "conversation between X and Y". But even under the most conservative estimate, they are a big majority in both cases.

So I'm sorry, but your statement that "Troi/Crush and Crusher/Ogawa talk about little else other than boys" is factually false.

"There [in DS9] women weren't in the classical care work roles."

You mean unlike TNG, which had plenty of women engineers and scientists and admirals and captains?

Also, since when is being the ship's doctor "a classical care-work role"? Leonard McCoy would like to have a word with you on this one...
Set Bookmark
Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 8:39pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S1: Angel One

"If we assume that these high paid professionals know what they are doing then that is probably not a coincidence. "

Of-course it isn't a coincidence.

For some reason having one female crew member dressed like that has become a Trek "tradition": Troi in TNG, 7-of-9 in Voyager and T'Pol in Enterprise.

And that's bad. I agree completely with that.

But it still doesn't negate the fact that Star Trek (with the possible exception of TOS due to it's age) generally treats its female characters with the respect they deserve.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 8:20pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S1: Angel One


You are obviously 100% correct in your criticism of gender inequality in the real world (doubly so when we're talking about the world of the 1980's/1990's).

But does the same apply to the world of TNG? I don't think so.

You wrote:
"I noticed the irony and hypocrisy of ST: TNG making an anti-misogyny episode when Season One gave us an Enterprise that was rife with Yeoman Bettys, a crying Yar, the care-taking female officers outside the command structure, ‘adoring wife of great scientist’ characters, Crusher/Troi and Crusher/Ogawa conversing solely about romance, and so on."

And quite frankly, it looks like we've been watching two completely different shows.

Picard's Enterprise most certainly wasn't "rife" with titillating female crewembers - yeomen or otherwise. The uniforms in TNG were identical for men and for women right from the beginning (perhaps you're confusing early TNG with TOS?).

Yar was generally written as a strong tough woman, and that single terrible scene you've mentioned (which is - indeed - terrible) does not change that.

TNG gave us dozens, if not hundreds, of strong-willed female guest characters that stood on their own from Enterprise crewmembers to captains and admirals to alien scientists and engineers and planetary leaders. And yes, we've also gotten female characters who are nothing more than wives and/or mothers. What of it? Surely even in an enlightened future utopia, there'll be women who *choose* to center their lives on caring for someone else?

As for romance-related discussions: Crusher and Ogawa discussed many other subjects. Seriously, between Dr. Crusher saving lives on a daily basis and Ogawa performing autopsies to uncover conspiracies and save her friend's career, I don't think these two women are in any danger of being mistaken for a pair of babbling gossips. And if they want - on occasion - to discuss Alyssa's love life, then why not? She is young and actively dating, while Beverly was her best friend and a kind-of mother figure to her. Why *wouldn't* they talk about romance? It's a perfectly normal part of the human experience, regardless of your gender.

In short, I don't really understand what's the fuss your making here is all about. At least not as long as we're talking about TNG.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 5:07pm (UTC -6)
Re: ENT S2: Vanishing Point

"The dialogue between Archer and Hoshi's father was atrocious."

I think they did this on purpose. After all, it isn't supposed to be an actual dialogue between these two people. The entire scene was something that a very transporter-obsessed (and transporter-phobic) Hoshi dreamt up in her mind.

On that level, I think, the "dialogue" works pretty well.

"As to the transporter element, I think Berman and Braga made a mistake by even having that technology available to them at the very start of the show."

To be fair, they really didn't want to do that. It was the network (UPN) that demanded the most iconic piece of Trek technology to be present in the show. The "Temporal Cold War" silliness was also decreed by the network. Seriously, had B&B been allowed to produce the prequel scenario they wanted to make, Enterprise would have been a far better show. Or at the very least , a stronger prequel.

(I say this as a fan of Enterprise. I really love this show, but it *could* have been miles better if the UPN suits didn't butt their noses into B&B's creative process)
Set Bookmark
Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 10:23am (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

Care to explain that last remark, Jason?

Because I don't recall Booming ever telling us his/her gender.

I'm also wondering what - exactly - you are so happy about here. First time for *what*, exactly?

(I have a pretty good guess regarding what this is about. I hope to God that I'm wrong).
Set Bookmark
Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 4:46am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S4: Rejoined

Booming, please don't feed the trolls.

Thank you.
Set Bookmark
Sat, Nov 16, 2019, 6:52pm (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women


"Here's the bottom line: you're using the word 'scientific' in the way you always do, which is to make some kind of authoritative claim on a thing that puts you above all of us because you're a "scientist" and therefore what you say is beyond dispute."

Not true.

You've been here for quite a while now, so you probably know how I hate it when people try to pull that "I'm the big expert and you are all stupid" stunt. You also know that I've called several people on pulling this kind of sh*t.

But here, Booming hasn't done anything wrong.

So leave the guy alone, will ya?

Also, if you are so eager to discuss the original topic of objectification (with or without a direct relation to the TOS episode), why aren't you doing that? Nobody is stopping you.

"I'm thinking there may be some folks in this discussion who are also on the spectrum. That's not an insult, or an accusation, or anything that has to be defended against. Just an observation."


You diagnose a bunch of strangers on the internet with a mental deficiency just because they have a different perspective on things than you? And then you say that it isn't something to be defended against?

I've known these people here for many months, and I assure you that none of them have any problem in understanding metaphors. Speaking of which: Why would a person who doesn't get metaphors, be interested in an allegorical sci fi show such as Star Trek?

I also think that your statement does a great disservice to any autistic people who might be writing on this site. There are probably quite a few of them here, given the high incidence of autism in geek culture. And they certainly don't need to hear the kind of gross generalizations you've made (while some autistics indeed have a problem with metaphors, there are plenty of others who get them just fine).
Set Bookmark
Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 2:41am (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

Can anybody please enlighten me as to the *point* of this entire debate on whether objectification is "a scientific term" or not?

Objectification is what it is. And it seems like both sides of this discussion have a pretty good idea what that word means:

Booming: "Objectification or dehumanization is about lessening the humanity of a group or person"
Peter: "It is *not* any old use of metaphor or simile"

Both 100% correct.

So why, again, are we debating the question of scientific definitions? Who the ****-ing cares, whether a word is a "scientific term" or not, when we all agree on its usage? The only thing that matters, is whether a given definition (academic or not) is USEFUL in helping us to understand the concept at hand.
Set Bookmark
Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 6:18pm (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

William is correct.

Spock, in the episode, spoke solely of the crystals when he said that line.

This does not, however, change the fact that when we look at this statement within the greater thematic context of the episode, it doesn't look good. We can't fault Spock on this, but we most certainly CAN fault the writers.

The problem here, at any rate, isn't the mere comparison between a person and an object. It's the nature of the comparison. Peter says that it hints at some kind of "inner beauty"? Perhaps. But what kind of inner beauty, exactly, are we talking about here? At no time, not even once, does anybody refer to Eve and co. as actual people in their own right. Everybody, including the women themselves, just expects them to play the traditional role of a housewife (or worse).

So yes, that's a pretty bad case of objectification.

The most maddening thing here is that the writers obviously intended this episode to deliver some kind of woman empowerment message (as Kirk said: "you either believe in yourself or you don't"), but they botched it so badly that it just makes you cringe. This, really, is the worst form of prejudice: The kind that people hand out without even realizing what they are doing.

Definitely one of the worst episodes of TOS.
(the idea that Gene Roddenberry actually thought this episode was a worthy candidate for being the TOS pilot truly boggles the mind)
Set Bookmark
Sun, Nov 3, 2019, 10:25am (UTC -6)
Re: ENT S3: The Council

The weapon was indeed moved, after Archer got caught trying to sneak into the weapon's original underwater hiding place. That happened a few episodes ago, in "Azati Prime".

And a future episode does answer your other question: It makes it clear that the 3 codes are only needed to deploy/arm the weapon. They aren't required for merely moving it, even though this technically involves a launch.

Not saying more, just in case you're a first-timer who cares about spoilers. Hope my reply helped.
Set Bookmark
Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 8:20am (UTC -6)
Re: ENT S4: Fourth Season Recap

"Fans have lauded season 4 as when the show got good, but I don't see it. If anything, season 4 is every bit as uneven and boring as seasons 1 and 2. I really don't get the praise that this season gets. I think fans were so excited to see more ties to the cannon, that they had blinders on."

The reason season 4 is lauded by so many, is that the ties to previous cannon were done *well* (most of the time). At least two of the trilogies (the Vulcan one and Romulan Marauder one) were stories that screamed to be told. The rest of the season (except perhaps "Bound" and the horrible horrible finale) were also good stories. It was also done with a masterful attention to detail.

So yeah, many fans loved Enterprise Season 4 and for a good reason. Not sure where those "blinders" come in. It was, indeed, a great season (and a lesson in prequel-making that the creators of the newer Trek shows should take to heart).

@Baron Samedi
"If Enterprise had 7 seasons, I could see the first two being looked at as the bad ones, three as the transition where it got good, and four as the beginning of its peak."

...and the fifth season giving us the beginning of the Earth-Romulan War.

Man... that would have been awesome.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Oct 30, 2019, 2:18am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S6: Man of the People


Eisenhower didn't make memorable speech on the matter. Makes a big difference, you know ;-)

(and LBJ should be given no less credit for continuing the program despite all the difficulties)

At any rate, you asked what Kennedy will be remembered for. Shaky or not, that speech was iconic and people remember him for that. (makes you wonder how big a celebrity is Picard in the 24th century, given the number of iconic speeches he gave. ;-))
Set Bookmark
Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 2:32pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S6: Man of the People

"Kennedy is a little bit more difficult because what did he actually achieve what people will remember in say 200 years. Not blowing up the planet?"

His inspiring Moon speech ("We choose to go to the moon not because it is easy but because it is hard, etc. etc.") and his commitment to actually follow through the promise and start project Apollo.

That's about the only thing Kennedy will be remembered in 200 years.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Oct 27, 2019, 2:26am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: The Motion Picture

To be fair, I've always thought 2001: A Space Odyssey also ended up feeling lost, pretentious and over-ponderous. Never understood why that film received such high praise. It took a great fascinating *idea* and turned it into a sluggish script. It's only saved from being a complete dud by a few iconic scenes that uplift the boring slog that's the rest of the film.

The special effects were amazing for the time, though. I'll give them that. "Ambitious misfire" pretty much sums that film up.
Set Bookmark
Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 9:49am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S4: The Nth Degree

As long as far left liberals want to establish Germanies all around the world, I have no problem with them whatsoever.

My point is this. You need a surplus of technology/goods/energy/exports/intelligence to support a social transfer system that yields results in the long run and keeps people motivated.
Star Trek relies on technology and moral education. Germany relies on a strong capitalistic economy, an organized state without much corruption that provides services worth of the taxes it gets, brain inflow from poorer EU countries, muscle inflow from immigrants from 3rd countries, etc.

Its not as simple as some seem to believe. Btw, try convincing Herr Sauble to increase german debt or an individual German to give away his/her accumulated wealth for funding additional social transfers without getting something in return...
Set Bookmark
Thu, Oct 24, 2019, 11:20pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S4: The Nth Degree

The far left liberals are in essence morons that want to establish a star trek economy without star trek technology.

Abolish poverty and room scarcity with unlimited energy, replicators and colonies,
create super computers that can support a centralized control
create medical technology that solves 99% of health problems without cost

and u dont need the free hand of the market or money to make society "tick" and "grow".

At this point though, you need money and free market to create the aforementioned technology.

In the end, Its the conservatives that will make the liberals utopia come true...
Set Bookmark
Thu, Oct 24, 2019, 2:35pm (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S5: For the Uniform

Agreed that drama-wise this episode is top-notch. That was never the problem for me.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 4:10am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S3: The Most Toys

To be fair, Lara's comment was stupid as ****.

I'm not a fan of Mr. Trump, but people who shoehorn politics into unrelated discussions are annoying AF. It's borderline trolling, in my view.

It's a pity, though, that after ten months of obscurity, her comment is suddenly put in the spotlight. I was perfectly happy not knowing it existed until today...
Set Bookmark
Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 3:16pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S4: Suddenly Human

Cultural relativism stops when Human Rights are violated. Emphasis on humans.
Talarians are free to set their own abusive culture for their own children, but inflicting it to human stolen children? Nope.
Even if they believe its ok, even if the human children are taught to believe its ok, its not ok.
Suppose Jono was a female child, being used as a house slave, occasionally for sex, without any education and prospect.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 3:40am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S4: Rejoined


But unfortunately, there are too many current shows that believe that *just* because they show LGBT people (or colored people or women), this means that any person who criticizes their writing is a bigot.

Or worse: they believe that just because they show some token representation, this automatically means that the show is beyond any other kind of moral inspection. They can support torture or war crimes or prejudice against other groups, but you aren't allowed to touch any of that because they have an LGBT (or colored or woman) character.

That wasn't a problem in 1995 (when this episode first aired) but it sure is a problem today. It has, in fact, become a staple of our times.

Gotta tell you, that a member of minority myself, I don't appreciate it when people like me (and you) are used as human shields against the critics.
Next ►Page 1 of 46
▲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.