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: 113 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 5
Set Bookmark
Alan Roi
Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 8:08pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

@Yanks

Given how inconsitant Star Trek is with time travel and parallel universes in general, my stand is that some forms of time travel disturb single timelines while others create branches. Braxton's crew therefore would only be tasked with dealing with those that don't create different branches.

Alternatively, some others might put forth the argument that it took a while for Braxton's people to get around to repairing the damage that created the Kelvinverse, and that there being no 4th movie would suggest that they've finally fixed the timeline and erased the events that occured in it.
Set Bookmark
Alan Roi
Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 7:36pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

@Kinematic

And now we're adding more stuff to widen the scope, which will capture even more characters in your every widening net. Breaking Rules? Well in this era, our chief examples Are Kirk, Spock and McCoy, characters to whom rule-breaking is their code of conduct.
Set Bookmark
Alan Roi
Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 5:28pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

@Wolfstar

IFAIC, there's nothing wrong with writing stories this way. When write a story of any length, i always know how it ends. I don't find randomingly meandering around from A-Z particularly interesting when it comes to storytelling.
Set Bookmark
Alan Roi
Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 5:22pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

@Kinematic

But sure. If you're looking for a Mary Sue, and you are willing to ignore the contradictions apparent to your argument, and expand the definition like a baloon, eventually you'll find one. However, there isn't one in this episode and there isn't one in this series.
Set Bookmark
Alan Roi
Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 5:13pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

@Kinematic

Yes, many of the characters in the show do have amazing and broad reaching abilities, but you decide to discount them, because, hey, none of them are the hated Michael Burnham, so they all get a pass.

You have to pretend a whole lot of things haven't happened in the show to come to your conclusions. Below is just one:

Burnham flouts the rules and ends up getting her ship blown up and in jail for the rest of her life and hated by everyone in the federation, especially her former friends and is only pulled out of that by a character from another universe pretending to be a Star Fleet captain who wants to use her to help him get back home to his horrific MMORPG version of the Federation and take over a genocidal civilization. Pure Mary Sue there, ROTFL. No, man, that is not how Mary Sue stories are written. And, no, not a lot of people would have been sad if Burnham had died during the first season. She did not easily shed the consequnces of her bad judgement calls which continue to resonate through the show.

And yet again, Discovery not being a show about office workers set in space does not make the character a Mary Sue or the series a Mary Sue show.
Set Bookmark
Alan Roi
Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 4:43pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

@Boo

As many have pointed out here and elsewhere, countless novels are not canon either. It is laughable to point to other non-canon works to support such an argument. Why bring up the Kelvinverse? Again, that is a laughable argument in any manner. What relevance is a different timeline?

Mary's Sues are not profoundly screwed up characters like Michael Burnham is.

I certainly have never come across anyone claiming Burnham is somehow 'better' than Spock. There's no indication that Spock idolized her any more than any younger sibling idolized an elder sibling, or even a baby sitter, really. Burnham is a screwed up character who just happens to be good at her job when she isn't making bad judgment calls, that is. Nothing the character flaws that Spock accuses her of when they interact rings false, even to those who like the character. Burnham cannot be a Mary Sue is if those flaws he brought up don't ring true. And that hasn't been the reaction of anyone I have heard of.

Do you think Spock's critical assessment of Burnham is false?
Set Bookmark
Alan Roi
Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 3:33pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

@Boo

there is the story and there is the meta-world around it consisting of writers, producers, directors who say whatever they want. You are talking about things 'outside the story' which is the actual derailing of talking about the story. Again, obsessing on how the series is 'marketed' distracts from the story.

Burnham is just like every other part of Spock's life we don't learn about until we do. That is how its always been with Spock as presented in the Franchises stories. Anything outside this is marketing.
Set Bookmark
Alan Roi
Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 3:30pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

@kinematic

People jump on the Mary Sue train as it gets longer and longer and adds more and more characters are unable look at any sort of nuance or past comparisons in order for them to make any sort of nuanced assessment. here's some counters to your argument which yes, lacks a whole lot of nuance and ignores a whole lot of things in order to fit this round peg in your square hole.

1. So do many Star Trek characters, especially *lead* characters. And the Likes of Spock, Data, Geordi La Forge, Worf, Dax, Bashir, Space Jesus Sisco, Janeway, 7 of 9 etc. Mary Sues all? Is Star Trek filled with Mary Sues. May be according to how vastly broad and subjective this term is becoming.

2. Subverted because Spock has a lot of family members that are never mentioned until he is forced to acknowledge them. Yeah, if it was Kirk or Picard or a never mentioned family member of Sicko's this would be a concern. But Spock? Come on. He never acknowledged his Wife, Father, Mother, Brother. How is a foster sister out of the question? Plus, it the writers have used this to to add depth to Sarek, Amanda and Spock serving more nuance to those characters. That's not a characteristic of a Mary Sue or how Mary Sues are insterted into existing properties by fanfic writers.

3. It is not easy for her to win anyone over or back over for what she's done, it takes much of the season to win Saru back over, and only because how he screws up when he's lost and as we find out she is a favorite of Lorca and MU Georgiou, two evil characters from the Mirror Universe. And other characters connect with her because they are simlarly fucked up in their own ways, not because she's a friend magnet by any means. Yeah, hears is redemption arc. Never heard of those? Mary Sue's don't have novel length redemtion arcs because they don't ever need them, perfect as they started off.

4. Her backstory isn't out of the ordinary for many scifi characters. Pretty much the only thing that distinguishes her from some other characters is a staggering ly bad choice in parents. Lots of us made a bad choice of parents. So what? Sisko had crappy parents too. So did Spock. So did Bashir. So did 7 of 9. Mary Sues all according to your super wide and encompassing definition.

5. Again, the lie about her causing the Klingon war. The Klingons started this war. Everyone knows this. Burnham did not start the war. Lots of characters are tormented by their past actions. Spock himself is constantly put upon ovr the course of the series. Sisko is bothered by his past. And her 'carrying the world on her shoulders' is seen by now as a character flaw. Her 'nobility' is based on how desperately she needs to atone for her past actions. Mary Sue's aren't this characterized by this kind of past nor reaction to it. Again, they are perfect.

6. How many lead characters in Star Trek aren't almost never truly in the Wrong? Kirk? Picard? Sisco? Janeway? Archer? This is a FEATURE of Star Trek as a Franchise. Again, being right most of the time is the characteristic of a TV lead in general and Star Trek in particular. She also is capable of making catastrophicly bad/highly questionable judgment calls. Assaulting superior officers when her arguments fail, falling in love/attracting people who are just as fucked up as she is, bringing MU Georgiou to the prime universe to try and atone for getting Prime Georgiou killed and in a belief that she can personally redeem MU Georgiou etc.

If this fits in the definition of Mary Sue, then most scifi shows have several of these in the cast, and it applies to so many characters in science fiction that you have made the term utterly meaningless other than what most people use it for: "A competant female character I don't like."
Set Bookmark
Alan Roi
Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 1:29pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

@Boo

"You think the writers don't need to explain, but they do feel that need because they keep saying that they will give a canon explanation. They are self conscious about it. Why you are ignoring it?"

Because all am interested in is the product. The marketing of said product is a useless distraction where it comes to enjoying said product. Why are you so obsessed with marketing and PR?
Set Bookmark
Alan Roi
Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 10:26pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: Lasting Impressions

@Gerontius

I think this would have been a stronger intro to the season that what we ended up with. It was a very affecting episode, IMO. However, what it comes down to is will advertisers fork out the cash for comercial time. From what I know, same day advertising brings in the most $$$$, +7 DVR viewing, not so much. I watch it same day, but as I am not a neilsen family I have no input where it counts.
Set Bookmark
Alan Roi
Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 9:05pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

@ Boo

What Michael Burnham is is a lead. Again, these days some people think Mary Sue can mean whatever they want it to. But the more they broaden their use of the term the more meaningless it becomes. Your definition is entirely subjective and could cover anyone from Sherlock Holmes to Dorothy Gale to Thomas Magnum to Ellen Ripley. Sorry, FAIL.

The people writing this series don't need to explain anything. All they have to do is continue telling the story. Whether the people who don't like how Discovery is told, the character of Michael Burnham or her existennce in Star Trek is their problem.
Set Bookmark
Alan Roi
Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 8:57pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Project Daedalus

@Skylord

I go by recurring characters who have a significant amount of dialogue and character time and in around 1/2 the episodes or more. So for me its been, Tilly, Michael, Stamets, Saru, Lorca/Pike, Tyler, Georgiou. There's a mix of male/femaile minor background characters which are about even, but Culber, Sarek and Leland have gotten a lot more story time than any of the other female characters who've either been in one or two eps or are background characters.
Set Bookmark
Alan Roi
Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 7:43pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

@ Boo

Mary Sue had a definition. If people are going outside the definition, then ergo Burnham is not a Mary Sue. What you offered was the definition of a "series lead". Mary Sue has a specific definition its not that and its certainly not the Star Trek word for b*tch as the most ardent Discovery critics seem to use it as a substitute for.

Star Trek adds past source material that it never mentioned before constantly in every single series. This is nothing new for a TV series in general or the Star Trek Franchise in particular. As for Spock never mentioning her, what about his wife, his father, his brother, his ex-gIrlfriend. Absolutely none were mentioned before we met them and he was forced to acknowledge them. Try again and back that up with actual something that has merit regarding either Star Trek or Spock.
Set Bookmark
Alan Roi
Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 7:20pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

@John Harmon

"And advanced enough technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Arthur C. Clark.

It was established that the tech teh Red Angel has available to is it is 500 years ahead of the current Federations. So yet, 'magical grade' technology was established as soon as that fact was determined.

Also, Absolutely nothing new where it comes to any iteration of Trek over the past 50 years. Both Spock and Worf have benefited from having alien features that kicked in without anyone being previously aware of them.
Set Bookmark
Alan Roi
Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 7:06pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

@Ghosted.

That was the actor singing acording to the actor himself.
Set Bookmark
Alan Roi
Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 7:05pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

@Boo

I don't have any problem with Quinto's spock. But he's a replacement Spock from a different timeline. Peck is playing a younger Spock, and having watched Star Trek from TOS on, he's doing a decent job.

FYI, his adopted sister is not a Mary Sue according to any definition of the word other than 'a female character you happen to not like'.
Set Bookmark
Alan Roi
Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 7:02pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

@John Harmon.

I had no heartbeat for five minutes once from a reaction to anesthetic during an operation. Deas as a doornail. Yet somehow it didn't stop a jolt of electrictiy from bringing me back. And that was in the 70s. The Red Angel has tech that's 750 years more advanced than that. Stands to reason it could bring a person who'se been dead for a couple minutes back to life even in Burhnam's condition.
Set Bookmark
Alan Roi
Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 2:17pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

@ Boo

Quinto did have the advantage of a live Leonard Nimoy, which Peck does not. And its a well known fact that the original writers were making Spock up as they went along.
Set Bookmark
Alan Roi
Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 2:02pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

#John Harmon

"She's the single most dangerous Starfleet officer in the history of Star Trek."

ROTFL!!!

Please, keep that absurdist humor coming.
Set Bookmark
Alan Roi
Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 2:00pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

@ John Harmon

She's dead for 2 minutes. 'Long after' that is not, even by the medical standards of 20 years ago.
Set Bookmark
Alan Roi
Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 1:54pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: Lasting Impressions

@DAVE in MN

Sure. And that *might* save Orville. But not many shows with Orville's same day ratings coupled with a year to year 40% drop in viewership have survived over the past 5 years to another season. This is me being realistic. I do think the show has had a number of well-realized eps of late, but if you want a show to get renewed, you put them at the front of a season to keep viewers engaged, not at the back when those viewers are gone.
Set Bookmark
Alan Roi
Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 12:47pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: Lasting Impressions

@Dave in MN

How can one watch the Orville in Australia now on TV, when the network that showed Fox content cancelled its deal with Fox a year ago?

The Orville is in trouble, even though, of late its actually been affecting to watch a lot more than it was last year, and is producing some of its best content. i would rate this ep as one of the better of the series and definitely a high point of this season, yet it appears to be too late for those put off by a lackluster first 1/2 of this season that has put viewership deep in the red zone and aren't around to watch the show's writing improve as it has for this ep.

Overall day of release watchers are under 3 mil. Demo ratings have dropped almost 40% from last year. Even with the California Tax Break, it still costs around $6 million a year which is a lot for a show that barely more than half a mil are tuning in to watch and advertisers earn the most bang for their buck.

Yes, cross your fingers and hope that Seth can somehow convince ABC execs that his little watched and very expensive show with sharply declining viewership is worth saving. IMO, it will take a whole lot of convincing.
Set Bookmark
Alan Roi
Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 12:21pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

@John Harmon

"Time Crystal" just sounds stupid. Regardless if there's any basis to it in real science, it sounds stupid and I fully guarantee you the writers of the show had no idea about the scientific concept."

They specifically refer to times crystals attributes in the Mudd ep last season when the concept is first introduced on the show, so they clearly had read up on Time Crystals. But sure double down. What do you think of Chroniton particles? Or all the other 'magical' means of time travel in Star Trek. Why start attacking something which actually has an albeit minimal but actual basis in science oever all the rest which actually have zero bases in science at all.

OH WAIT, NOW YOU ARE USING ALL CAPS, to trick non-thinking people that you are saying something meaningful. But as long as you use ALLL CAPS just the use of ALL CAPS must mean that what you are saying is true, right?

I'm sorry, your argument doesn't hold any weight, even in the weightless envrionment in space. As for Tilly, yes, she was having an argument in her head with a being that was living inside her head. Do try to think about that for a moment. if it helps I'll saying in all caps. WE WERE TREATED TO A SCENE THAT WAS ALL INSIDE TILLY'S HEAD. And that fact that she won the race and enjoyed a personal best WAS SPECIFICALLY SHOWING US how mentally messed up her situation with MAY was, to demonstrate MAY's nature. Or is that too hard for you to wrap your head around? It wasn't for me.

Set Bookmark
Alan Roi
Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 5:32am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

@Thomas

Or chroniton particles, or slingshoting around the sun, or most other form of time travel the franchise has cooked up..
Set Bookmark
Alan Roi
Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 4:45am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

Man does any kind of sex talk make some fans uncomfortable.
Next ►Page 1 of 5
▲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.