Comment Stream

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

Total Found: 451 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 19
Set Bookmark
Luke
Sat, Dec 8, 2018, 1:34pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S1: Code of Honor

Stay with the man who kidnapped her? Yeah, I don't think that would have been a good idea.
Set Bookmark
Luke (THE SHIT)
Wed, Dec 5, 2018, 1:47am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S4: Bar Association

LUKE YOU ARE A SUBHUMAN SHIT. A CONSERVATIVE TURDSUCKER AS YOU CAN'T WATCH STAR TREK. NEVER! IF YOU'LL BE CAUGHT AGAIN WATCHING STAR TREK YOU'LL DIE SMELLING MY FARTS FOR 5 DAYS. AFTER, YOU CORPSE WILL BE TURDED AND TURDED AGAIN FOR THE ETERNITY. GO EAT TRASH AND SUCK STINKY TURDS AND BARF, U DIRTY BASTURD AND SUBHUMAN SHIT!

LUKE YOU ARE A SUBHUMAN SHIT. A CONSERVATIVE TURDSUCKER AS YOU CAN'T WATCH STAR TREK. NEVER! IF YOU'LL BE CAUGHT AGAIN WATCHING STAR TREK YOU'LL DIE SMELLING MY FARTS FOR 5 DAYS. AFTER, YOU CORPSE WILL BE TURDED AND TURDED AGAIN FOR THE ETERNITY. GO EAT TRASH AND SUCK STINKY TURDS AND BARF, U DIRTY BASTURD AND SUBHUMAN SHIT!

LUKE YOU ARE A SUBHUMAN SHIT. A CONSERVATIVE TURDSUCKER AS YOU CAN'T WATCH STAR TREK. NEVER! IF YOU'LL BE CAUGHT AGAIN WATCHING STAR TREK YOU'LL DIE SMELLING MY FARTS FOR 5 DAYS. AFTER, YOU CORPSE WILL BE TURDED AND TURDED AGAIN FOR THE ETERNITY. GO EAT TRASH AND SUCK STINKY TURDS AND BARF, U DIRTY BASTURD AND SUBHUMAN SHIT!

LUKE YOU ARE A SUBHUMAN SHIT. A CONSERVATIVE TURDSUCKER AS YOU CAN'T WATCH STAR TREK. NEVER! IF YOU'LL BE CAUGHT AGAIN WATCHING STAR TREK YOU'LL DIE SMELLING MY FARTS FOR 5 DAYS. AFTER, YOU CORPSE WILL BE TURDED AND TURDED AGAIN FOR THE ETERNITY. GO EAT TRASH AND SUCK STINKY TURDS AND BARF, U DIRTY BASTURD AND SUBHUMAN SHIT!

LUKE YOU ARE A SUBHUMAN SHIT. A CONSERVATIVE TURDSUCKER AS YOU CAN'T WATCH STAR TREK. NEVER! IF YOU'LL BE CAUGHT AGAIN WATCHING STAR TREK YOU'LL DIE SMELLING MY FARTS FOR 5 DAYS. AFTER, YOU CORPSE WILL BE TURDED AND TURDED AGAIN FOR THE ETERNITY. GO EAT TRASH AND SUCK STINKY TURDS AND BARF, U DIRTY BASTURD AND SUBHUMAN SHIT!

LUKE YOU ARE A SUBHUMAN SHIT. A CONSERVATIVE TURDSUCKER AS YOU CAN'T WATCH STAR TREK. NEVER! IF YOU'LL BE CAUGHT AGAIN WATCHING STAR TREK YOU'LL DIE SMELLING MY FARTS FOR 5 DAYS. AFTER, YOU CORPSE WILL BE TURDED AND TURDED AGAIN FOR THE ETERNITY. GO EAT TRASH AND SUCK STINKY TURDS AND BARF, U DIRTY BASTURD AND SUBHUMAN SHIT!

LUKE YOU ARE A SUBHUMAN SHIT. A CONSERVATIVE TURDSUCKER AS YOU CAN'T WATCH STAR TREK. NEVER! IF YOU'LL BE CAUGHT AGAIN WATCHING STAR TREK YOU'LL DIE SMELLING MY FARTS FOR 5 DAYS. AFTER, YOU CORPSE WILL BE TURDED AND TURDED AGAIN FOR THE ETERNITY. GO EAT TRASH AND SUCK STINKY TURDS AND BARF, U DIRTY BASTURD AND SUBHUMAN SHIT!

LUKE YOU ARE A SUBHUMAN SHIT. A CONSERVATIVE TURDSUCKER AS YOU CAN'T WATCH STAR TREK. NEVER! IF YOU'LL BE CAUGHT AGAIN WATCHING STAR TREK YOU'LL DIE SMELLING MY FARTS FOR 5 DAYS. AFTER, YOU CORPSE WILL BE TURDED AND TURDED AGAIN FOR THE ETERNITY. GO EAT TRASH AND SUCK STINKY TURDS AND BARF, U DIRTY BASTURD AND SUBHUMAN SHIT!

LUKE YOU ARE A SUBHUMAN SHIT. A CONSERVATIVE TURDSUCKER AS YOU CAN'T WATCH STAR TREK. NEVER! IF YOU'LL BE CAUGHT AGAIN WATCHING STAR TREK YOU'LL DIE SMELLING MY FARTS FOR 5 DAYS. AFTER, YOU CORPSE WILL BE TURDED AND TURDED AGAIN FOR THE ETERNITY. GO EAT TRASH AND SUCK STINKY TURDS AND BARF, U DIRTY BASTURD AND SUBHUMAN SHIT!

LUKE YOU ARE A SUBHUMAN SHIT. A CONSERVATIVE TURDSUCKER AS YOU CAN'T WATCH STAR TREK. NEVER! IF YOU'LL BE CAUGHT AGAIN WATCHING STAR TREK YOU'LL DIE SMELLING MY FARTS FOR 5 DAYS. AFTER, YOU CORPSE WILL BE TURDED AND TURDED AGAIN FOR THE ETERNITY. GO EAT TRASH AND SUCK STINKY TURDS AND BARF, U DIRTY BASTURD AND SUBHUMAN SHIT!

LUKE YOU ARE A SUBHUMAN SHIT. A CONSERVATIVE TURDSUCKER AS YOU CAN'T WATCH STAR TREK. NEVER! IF YOU'LL BE CAUGHT AGAIN WATCHING STAR TREK YOU'LL DIE SMELLING MY FARTS FOR 5 DAYS. AFTER, YOU CORPSE WILL BE TURDED AND TURDED AGAIN FOR THE ETERNITY. GO EAT TRASH AND SUCK STINKY TURDS AND BARF, U DIRTY BASTURD AND SUBHUMAN SHIT!

LUKE YOU ARE A SUBHUMAN SHIT. A CONSERVATIVE TURDSUCKER AS YOU CAN'T WATCH STAR TREK. NEVER! IF YOU'LL BE CAUGHT AGAIN WATCHING STAR TREK YOU'LL DIE SMELLING MY FARTS FOR 5 DAYS. AFTER, YOU CORPSE WILL BE TURDED AND TURDED AGAIN FOR THE ETERNITY. GO EAT TRASH AND SUCK STINKY TURDS AND BARF, U DIRTY BASTURD AND SUBHUMAN SHIT!

LUKE YOU ARE A SUBHUMAN SHIT. A CONSERVATIVE TURDSUCKER AS YOU CAN'T WATCH STAR TREK. NEVER! IF YOU'LL BE CAUGHT AGAIN WATCHING STAR TREK YOU'LL DIE SMELLING MY FARTS FOR 5 DAYS. AFTER, YOU CORPSE WILL BE TURDED AND TURDED AGAIN FOR THE ETERNITY. GO EAT TRASH AND SUCK STINKY TURDS AND BARF, U DIRTY BASTURD AND SUBHUMAN SHIT!

LUKE YOU ARE A SUBHUMAN SHIT. A CONSERVATIVE TURDSUCKER AS YOU CAN'T WATCH STAR TREK. NEVER! IF YOU'LL BE CAUGHT AGAIN WATCHING STAR TREK YOU'LL DIE SMELLING MY FARTS FOR 5 DAYS. AFTER, YOU CORPSE WILL BE TURDED AND TURDED AGAIN FOR THE ETERNITY. GO EAT TRASH AND SUCK STINKY TURDS AND BARF, U DIRTY BASTURD AND SUBHUMAN SHIT!
Set Bookmark
Luke
Wed, Dec 5, 2018, 12:16am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S4: Our Man Bashir

@Elliott

Quick question - how do you compute your final rating for a given episode? I ask because I have no idea how your scoring system works in regard to the scores assigned to each individual act and how they all relate to the final score. Where would this episode (which you gave three stars) fall on a 0-10 scale? 7.5 out of ten, perhaps?

I'm curious because I, as an admittedly HUGE James Bond fan (I even said in my review that Bond is probably my second favorite franchise after Trek) gave "Our Man Bashir" an 8/10 and you, as an admitted non-fan, seem to have given it something close to the same score. That may actually be the first time I've seen that happen - for a fan and a non-fan of Bond to come to the same overall opinion of the episode. In my experience this episode seems to be liked by Bond fans but disliked by non-fans.
Set Bookmark
Luke
Sun, Nov 18, 2018, 11:54pm (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S2: Cold Fire

@Elliott

"...we are reminded of the existence of Banjoman's mate (whom I suspect guises herself as Lulu Hogg)"

Are you comparing the Caretaker to Boss Hogg from "The Dukes of Hazzard"? If so, why do you have disrespect J.D.'s good name like that? He was a much more three-dimensional character than Banjoman (or Suspiria) ever was.
Set Bookmark
Luke
Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 8:13pm (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S1: Learning Curve

@Elliott

"...but in 1995, this must have been a huge let-down for this promising new series."

I actually remember watching this back in 1995 when it first premiered and I can assure it was indeed that.... a huge letdown. For all the flack VOY gets (some richly deserved, in my opinion) VOY Season One is actually really enjoyable on the whole. I've always thought the show had the strongest opening season of them all (I'm not counting "Discovery" - I haven't seen a single episode and have no desire to). If I ever get around to continuing my reviews I'd be interested to see how the first season actually does stack up against the others.

I am confused about one thing you wrote, however....

"Chakotay enters and confronts the group. Doughy says they're just going to do things “the Maquis way,” whatever the fuck that means. Well, apparently “the Maquis way” is actually “the Sisko way,” as Chakotay just decks him right out of his chair, warning him that further insubordination like this will just incur further punches. Beltran gives a good performance here, but I have to say, I fucking hate this. First of all, what if it was Henley (the girl with the headband) who had given his little Braveheart speech? Would Chakotay have punched her in the face? Or the Bajoran kid? This isn't the 60s. Kirk is dead—let's just let the machismo die already, unless the Maquis have decided to abandon sexual equality along with common sense. Heh. Tell that to B'Ellana."

Are you saying that obviously he shouldn't punch Henley? Because if you want sexual equality, then yes, he should be willing to punch her just as readily as he punches Dalby. Or are you saying that nobody should be punching anybody (FYI, I agree completely, if that is what you're saying)?

What bothers me most about this episode is the discrepancy between how the Maquis are treated and how Neelix is treated. Dalby messes with a gel-pack in order to fix it and inadvertently interferes with a couple of minor ship's systems (most notably being Janeway's holonovel). What's the punishment for this? He and three other Maquis, who weren't even involved in the gel-pack disruptions, are put through a grueling training program in other to "whip them into shape". Neelix, on the other hand, through sheer fucking incompetence, not only damages ALL the gel-packs but in so doing threatens the entire ship. What is his punishment? Oh, that's right, he's not punished at all! He's not forced to endure 10K runs with the gravity increased or made to clean the entire transporter room with a futuristic toothbrush. He sure isn't forced to adhere to every single minute detail of Starfleet uniform standards. All we basically get is.... "Oh, that's just our Neelix. Isn't he such a character? Hyuck hyuck!"

Gee, I wonder why the Maquis are having trouble adapting to life on this ship. One of them commits a small breach of protocol and four of them are singled out for rigorous "reeducation". And when they, quite rightly, point out the ludicrous nature of the punishment, they're physically assaulted by their own captain. Neelix, however, can jeopardize the lives of everyone onboard and not even get a slap on the wrist because, apparently, he has some kind of special, protected status.
Set Bookmark
Luke
Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 2:41am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S3: Family Business

@Iceman

"It's interesting reading both Elliott and Luke's takes on the episode. It seems that the one constant in the Trek fandom, regardless of political ideology, is that the Ferengi are horrible."

Indeed. Elliott and I make not agree on much - for instance he thinks that " capitalism, especially in its current Neoliberal expression, is a blight upon the earth" and I'm of the opinion that capitalism, even in it's corrupted neo-liberal form, is the best hope humanity has for prosperity and long-term advancement. However, on one thing we most certainly agree.... the Ferengi are just a joke. Heck, I was even harsher on this episode than he was.

While I do have a real soft-spot for Quark (he's probably my favorite character on DS9) and for the Ferengi in general, I got to admit the execution of so, so much of the Ferengi-oriented material (from TNG to DS9 and VOY, and even on ENT!) is just downright garbage.
Set Bookmark
Luke
Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 12:55am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S3: Explorers

@Elliott

1.) "Well, it was well-established that the Bajoran culture was once very advanced. It was established all the way back in “Ensign Ro.” What hasn't been explained is what slowed them down before the Occupation. Hmm...I wonder if Bajor had a dark age, when religious paranoia squashed out understanding, reason, science and skepticism?"

If I remember correctly, the only thing that "Ensign Ro" established was that the Bajorans were "culturally advanced" - meaning they were doing things like producing philosophers and artists and great works of literature - when Humans weren't yet standing erect. Aside from these light-ships, I don't think it's ever been said that the Bajorans were in any way technologically advanced prior to the Occupation.

Dukat will later say when the Cardassians first came to Bajor that the Bajorans were at least a century behind them, technologically speaking. Now, granted, that comes from the mouth of a deluded madman with a gargantuan ego and an overwhelming sense of racial superiority plus a Cardassian version of the White Man's Burden, so take it for what it's really worth. However, from everything else we see or are told about the Bajorans prior to the Occupation, they seem to have a much more contemplative species than most. They don't seem to have been all that interested in advancing their technology.

I doubt there was a "dark age, when religious paranoia squashed out understanding, reason, science and skepticism". They just seem to have followed a much different path than did Humanity, or indeed most of the races in Trek.

2.) "Over dinner, Sisko tells Jake that the most difficult part of the trip, besides overcoming common sense, will be getting through the Don Cheadle Belt or whatever it's called."

Actually, I'd say the most difficult part would be.... getting the thing off the planet in the first place. Seriously, how did the ancient Bajorans (who, remember, aren't that technologically advanced) get this rickety and delicate thing into orbit? Notice how Sisko doesn't even bother with part of the journey? He and Jake don't start their little get-away from Bajor. They launch the thing out of one of the station's cargo bays. I actually like this episode a fair deal more than you seem to (I gave it a 7/10) but it is rather convenient how that little problem is just skimmed over, isn't it?

3.) "I don't understand why Sisko couldn't have built a regular boat...you know, on the water. He and Jake could have sailed across the Bajoran sea—still an impressive and difficult thing to do by yourself with 800-year-old equipment!"

That.... is a very good idea! I would have loved to see that. Sadly, I think that wasn't even considered because DS9 was already getting plenty of criticism for being a "soap opera in space" and not having enough science-fiction elements, a la TOS or TNG (or even VOY at this point). Focusing a whole episode on one group of characters doing the decidedly non-science-ficiton thing of sailing in a boat and another group grappling with interpersonal issues probably wouldn't have helped in that regard.

4.) "Finally, in my opinion, the character of Jake is not adding very much to the series. Sending him off to school, where he could return, Wesley-like, now and again when the story could use him, would alleviate the awkwardness of having this ostensible main cast member so frequently absent from the show. I suppose there may have been contract issues preventing this, but it seems like a missed opportunity."

I doubt there were any contract issues involved. Sadly, the reason Jake so often appears as "Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Picture" is because the writers created him in the first place not to be a fleshed out character in his own right but to simply add dynamics to Sisko's character. It wasn't until they basically stumbled on the idea of making him a writer that they had any idea what to do with him at all in his own right, divorced from his relationship with his father. And even from here on out, with the writer aspect attached to the character, they STILL don't do all that much.
Set Bookmark
Luke
Tue, Oct 9, 2018, 4:13am (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S6: Fury

@PJ

Even though I completely agree that this is nothing but a slap in the face to all Kes fans, myself included, I have defend Braga on this one.

He was only one of four people involved in the writing.... including Rick Berman himself. That means Braga and the other two were most likely only doing what Berman commanded them to do.

Berman deserves all the blame for this train-wreck.
Set Bookmark
Luke
Sat, Sep 22, 2018, 2:03am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S3: Meridian

@Elliott

"Do we really think Starfleet would casually explore Borg space if it were nearby? "

Well, I honestly wouldn't put it past them given how utterly moronic Starfleet Command and its flag officers are routinely shown to be across the whole franchise (seriously, with the exceptions of Admiral Ross in late-DS9 and Admiral Forrest in ENT, I can't think of a single example where an admiral/ambassador/bureaucrat is consistently shown to be one of the unalloyed "good guys").

"not only do they look completely human..."

Oh, come now, that's not fair. After all, they all have yellowish discolorations running from their eyes to the hairline on their temples. So, therefore, by Trek logic, they MUST look like aliens. Right?

"So, Deral, a widower, and Dax have a date where they climb trees, stand around manicured-lawns, listen to cheesy harp music, and do other really boring shit."

LOL! You know, I may disagree with Elliott on a lot of things, but I got to admit that he does know how to bring the funny. That is such a perfect description of that entire scene!
Set Bookmark
Luke
Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 1:40am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S3: The House of Quark

@Elliott

With all the talk you gave to how sexist the B-plot is, I'm just curious.... what kind of sexism are you saying "Molly must go with her mother" is? Is it sexist against women by saying that the women must take care of the children or is it sexist against men for implying that a man obviously can't be capable of caring for a child on his own?
Set Bookmark
Luke
Tue, Aug 28, 2018, 12:07am (UTC -6)
Re: Frequently Asked Questions

Count me in the camp that doesn't think "Babylon 5" has aged all that well. But, then, I was never all that impressed with it to begin with. It's a damn fine show, no doubt, but I've encountered plenty of people who honestly think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Sorry, but it's just not that good.

The special effects were never that great to begin with and REALLY have not aged well at all. The acting is rather hit and miss - you have phenomenally great actors like Peter Jurasik (Londo) and Andreas Katsulas (G'Kar), but the rest of the cast vary from average at best (Boxleitner as Captain Sheridan) to downright awful (Claudia Christian as Commander Ivanova). The characters themselves are also hit and miss - Londo and G'Kar are standouts, some like Marcus, Lennier, Lyta and Garibaldi are passable and others like Delenn, Vir, Zack and Ivanova range from slightly off-puting to borderline unwatchable.

The writing also varies a great deal in quality. JMS was unbelievably good at set-up and atmosphere, but often failed miserably in the pay-off to many of the shows grand arcs (at least in my humble opinion). And Season Five is.... .... well.... .... bad, just bad!

Now don't get me wrong, I do consider myself a fan of the show - in as much as I consider myself a fan off any flawed, slightly-above-average series. But if there is one thing I've always taken away from B5 it's that it has made my appreciation for DS9 rise considerably.
Set Bookmark
Luke
Mon, Aug 6, 2018, 10:11am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S4: The Nth Degree

Ah, Skeptical, you beat me to the punch. I was just going to copy-paste your magnificent post in the DS9: "Looking for Par'Mach in All the Wrong Places" comments. If anyone wants a more detailed response, look it up (from March 16, 2016).
Set Bookmark
Luke
Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 2:30am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S2: Rivals

@Dr. Dunc....

I've noticed that DS9, more than any of the other shows, had a noticeable tendency to put characters, especially background ones, in elaborate or ridiculous hairstyles. Since I like to count things during my re-watches (like Holodeck Toys - the number of times we see characters wearing outfits or taking props into the holodeck when they could just as easily wear holographic outfits) I decided to count this item during the reviews. The first number is the total times it has happened, the second is the number of times it happens in the given episode.

If I ever do manage to get back to my reviews I'll continue the process. For instance, things I could for VOY episodes could be Holodeck Toys again (since it's more egregious on that series) or the number of times Janeway dies (which, if I remember correctly is a surprisingly high amount of times) or how many photon torpedoes they fire with a limited supply.

The problem is that I stopped reviewing because I was getting burned out and just needed a break and then never picked it back up. And since the next episode for me to review is "Profit and Lace", that doesn't really help get me back into the swing of it. *wink*
Set Bookmark
Luke
Thu, May 31, 2018, 2:47am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S5: For the Uniform

@kapages

"Stop defending the religious lunatic and ask yourselves. What would Picard do? "

Well, he would probably just sit back and watch as the whole planet's population dies and then pat himself on the back for being such a truly devoted follower of his religious devotion to the Prime Directive.

Doubt me? Watch TNG: "Homeward".
Set Bookmark
Luke Matrix
Sun, Nov 19, 2017, 5:24am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S6: Inquisition

I think it's a neat episode with great acting by both Siddig and William Sadler. Like a few commenters have already said I think the inclusion of Section 31 is an interesting story element because of how they clash with the Federation ideals. I don't think having a secret cabal doing what they think is best for the Federation changes anything about our characters and the rest of Starfleet, because while our hero characters have been by necessity good blokes we've seen plenty of bad or misguided eggs like Ronald Tracy, John Gill, Janice Lester, Garth of Izar, Admiral Cartwright, Eric Pressman, Norah Satie, Vice-Admiral Kennelly, Admiral Leyton and Admiral Doherty. Section 31 is just a bunch of pricks who've been doing it longer.
My only quibble with the episode is having Section 31 be in the shadows for over 200 (or 300) years. Now on the one hand I think it's a cool story idea that around the time of First Contact a bunch of people got together to further Earth's agenda as they ventured into the stars. I like seeing different factions played off one another, like seeing SG1 vs the NID, or the Machine team vs Samaritan, and it was fun seeing them back in Enterprise. But on the other hand I feel like it diminishes the individual if they retcon that S31 had a hand in every major plot in Star Trek. Cartwright was just a disillusioned guy who made a deal with his counterpart Chang. Doherty was just a dumb idiot suckered in by whatsisstretchyface. Not everything needs to be connected.
Set Bookmark
Luke
Tue, Oct 17, 2017, 2:57pm (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S3: Third Season Recap

@WilliamB - I'd say Season Three is a slight improvement over Season Two on the whole. Though that is almost entirely due to the rather strong set episodes it ends on. It's mostly, like almost all of VOY, just average. Even the much-despised "Trilogy of Terror" isn't really that bad, in my humble opinion. I actually kind of like "Darkling", "Rise" is also just average and "Favorite Son".... well, okay, that one is pretty bad. ;-P

But, it does have more stand-outs than Season Two offered - "Fair Trade", "Unity", "Before and After" and "Scorpion, Part I". Whereas Season Two's only real stand-out episode was "Meld". Maybe "The Thaw" qualifies, but I think it falls just shy.

Season Four, however, is indeed a drastic improvement, almost right from the get-go. It's easily the best of the bunch. If memory serves it's the only season of VOY where I would award two ten of ten scores to separate episodes. One of these days I really ought to get back to my reviews of Trek, I'd love to finish up DS9 and then move on to VOY and ENT eventually. God, I can't believe it's been almost seventeen months since I last reviewed DS9: "Valiant"!
Set Bookmark
Luke
Thu, Sep 7, 2017, 3:26am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S5: Rapture

Well, I count no less than five different logical fallacies in that brief comment alone. "Slippery slope", "black or white", "false cause", "composition/division" and "anecdotal".

Well done.
Set Bookmark
Luke
Mon, Jun 19, 2017, 2:21am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S5: For the Uniform

What is going on in these comments?
Set Bookmark
Luke
Sat, May 27, 2017, 8:11pm (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S7: It's Only a Paper Moon

Ah, yes.... because all of us "pearl clutching" conservatives really had a problem when, say, Worf (played by a black man) ended up with Dax (played by a white woman). Or when Worf and Ezri hooked up. Or when Bashir and Ezri ultimately ended up together. Or when Worf and Troi had a relationship. Or when Paris (a white guy) married Torres (played by a Hispanic woman) on VOY. Or when LaForge over on TNG only expressed interest in white women. Or when Mayweather ended up having a past relationship with a white woman over on ENT.

But put two black people together in a realtionship and people actually start pearl clutching.

Funny how that works.
Set Bookmark
Luke
Mon, May 8, 2017, 4:45am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S5: Let He Who Is Without Sin...

Yeah, Worf is the controlling one in this relationship. Sure.

Dax, to paraphrase William B from upthread, ....
1.) Chooses the vacation they go on.
2.) Chooses to tell everyone why Worf is upset (regarding her dinner with Captain Boday) when Worf wanted it to be private, in front of Worf no less.
3.) Constantly talks about Worf behind his back.
4.) Repeatedly tells Worf to get out of his uniform.
5.) Instructs Worf to put on his swimsuit, which seemingly she got him and is clearly *not* the type of swimsuit he would be comfortable wearing on what is, let's remember, his body.
6.) Tells him to stop reading the Essentialist pamphlet.
7.) Tells him that it's none of his business what Leeta does as if she was not frequently gossiping.
8.) Criticizes him for attending the Essentialists' rally.

So, he went where she wanted to go, did what she wanted to do and was okay with her bad-mouthing him. All while she was telling him what he should wear, what he should read, what he should say and who he should time with. But he's the controlling one because he would prefer it if she didn't engage in clearly sexualized pastimes with a former lover (which she has no problem doing - pretty odd thing for such a *controlled* woman to do).

We must have watched different episodes.
Set Bookmark
Luke
Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 2:28am (UTC -6)
Re: ENT S2: Bounty

@ Jason R - "What people don't like is when Trek uses sex appeal as a substitute for good story or to distract from poor quality. It's not about being offended by female nudity - it's being offended by the notion that putting an actress in her underwear can distract us from a terrible episode. "

Then why does this subset of Trek fans complain every single time any kind of nudity, or sexuality, appears on screen. Every. Single. Time. They even complain when it happens in an otherwise good, or at least decent, episode. Going back to SFDebris and his obsession with it, look no further than his review of DS9: "Distant Voices". At one point, after we've realized everything is taking place in Bashir's imagination, there's a Dabo Girl who sings "Happy Birthday". SFDebris complains that she's wearing a skin-tight costume even though it fits perfectly in the story as Bashir is fantasizing about having a sexy woman singing to him. Or how about VOY: "Warlord", when Torres shows up in a swimsuit at one point. They complain about that as well, even though it makes perfect sense story-wise as she's taking part in a beach resort holo-program (and it's not even a very revealing swimsuit - it's a one-piece). Like I said.... Every. Single. Time.

@ Peter G - "But I suspect the reason Trek fans are displeased at the sexualization (of a Vulcan, no less) on ENT is because Trek is supposed to be representative of a future that is beyond racism and sexism, and certainly part of that vision should be avoiding sexualizing people for profit."

If that's the case then why don't these sex-negative fans get anywhere near as outraged when a man is shown without his shirt on, or with even less clothes on. I don't remember anybody getting as outraged as Jammer does in this very review whenever William Shatner appeared topless. In fact, TOS may have shown more male than female skin.

@ William B - "I am also reminded of Ron Moore's comment in his famous Voyager rant about Seven's outfit -- if you want her to be sexualized, have her be interested in sex."

Then the sex-negative Trek fans shouldn't have a problem this episode, as T'Pol's entire plot revolves solely around her intense interest in having sex. And yet, here we are.

@ Chrome - "The best I could hope is that the actress and maybe some of the female writers have some input as to whether they think a woman in the 23 - 24th century would wear a particular costume. "

Nobody ever forced Marina Sirtis to wear those body hugging costumes Troi almost always wore. Nobody ever forced Jeri Ryan to wear those catsuits. Nobody ever forced Terry Farrell to wear a swimsuit in DS9: "Let He Who Is Without Sin...". Nobody ever forced Roxann Dawson to wear a swimsuit in VOY: "Warlord". Nobody ever forced Jeri Ryan to wear catsuits. Nobody ever forced Linda Park to appear in her underwear. And nobody ever forced Jolene Blalock to wear catsuits or to appear in semi-naked scenes. Every single one of those women chose, of her own free will, to do those things. Each one said something along the lines of "yes, I'm comfortable with my body and I'm happy to show it off." They all could have simply put their feet down and refused to do it. I find it odd that as you advocate for women's agency you're willing to strip these women of that very agency and portray them as simply being acted upon by the powers that be.

@ Jason R - "In the 90s it was sleazy, phony and lame all in the same package. The irony with Jeri Ryan was that she was really a talented actress and the writing for her character was good..."

Indeed it is a shame that the sex-negative fans can't seem to look past her physical appearance. You're right: Ryan is a very good actress. I even think that Jolene Blalock is a better actress than most people give her credit for. I'd rather focus on their characters. However, the sex-negative fans always say: "We shouldn't focus on their bodies! Now shut up while I do nothing but focus on their bodies!"

@ William B - "... they read as purely adolescent fantasies partly *because* it seems inconceivable that they could actually have sex or be so interested -- to appeal to teens who are hormonal but also threatened by sex (and especially by female desire, as opposed to desirable females). And that genuinely seems to be part of the design -- as if people being sex objects for audience purposes is what they want, in order to sell the shows, but for them to be sexual beings with their own desires would be a bridge too far and might alienate people. "

And yet, again, in this very episode T'Pol has an overwhelmingly intense desire to do just that - actually have sex. It gets to the point where she's willing to jump both Phlox's and Reed's bones on the spot because she desires it so badly. And yet, Jammer and quite a few commenters still lambast the episode for daring to show Blalock in a state of semi-undress.
Set Bookmark
Luke
Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 6:03am (UTC -6)
Re: ENT S2: Bounty

Okay, can someone please explain to me what it is about a certain subsection of Trek fans and their obsessive disdain for sexuality (especially female sexuality)?

"OMG, Jolene Blalock's belly button is showing?! WHY ISN'T SHE IN A BURQA?!?!?!?! WHERE'S MY FAINTING COUCH?!?!?!?! GET ME MY SMELLING SALTS!!!!! Clearly this is only meant to appeal to those disgusting, teenaged, horndog boys - people who I'm naturally better than because I'm above such filthy things as titillation. Not that I'm opposed to sexuality, mind you; I just howl with indignation every single time it's presented in any fashion."

Seriously, for a fanbase that so prides itself on being open-minded, there is a remarkable streak of sex-negativity among us. Just look at SFDebris, for example. The man descends into apoplectic rage every time a female character wears something even remotely skin-tight, let alone when she's *GASP* scantily-clad. I just don't get it. I'd say a lot of Trek fans are awfully Victorian when it comes to sex, but that's an insult to Victorian era people. They're more like modern day Puritans.
Set Bookmark
Luke
Mon, Mar 27, 2017, 8:25pm (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S4: Retrospect

Claudio - Your students are "almost universally appalled by it"?

If the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" appalls them, then there is something seriously wrong with your students.
Set Bookmark
Luke
Sat, Mar 25, 2017, 6:07am (UTC -6)
Re: ENT S2: A Night in Sickbay

Damn, I'm something of an ENT apologist, even an Archer apologist, but this is absolutely dire. I've never understood the hatred most people have toward Archer as a character. In fact, I often fail to see why so many see him as a complete incompetent. But this time the writers seemed intent on making him just that.

Let's review that major - and I stress "major" because there are plenty more - problems with this episode....
1.) Why the hell should I care about Porthos? First off, I'm a cat person not a dog person. But you know what? If there was an episode that focused on Data taking Spot to some planet and Spot getting sick, I still wouldn't care. Because a character's pet shouldn't be the damn focus of an entire episode! They actually did have Spot be the focus of half an episode - "Force of Nature" - and it was crap too!
2.) Why does Archer even take Porthos to the planet in the first place? Here he is, faced with visiting a planet of people he knows, from first-hand experience, that are more easily offended than even the most out-there, lunatic, trigger-warning-happy, modern Progressive Social Justice Warriors and he takes his freaking dog on the visit! Yeah, Jon, there's simply no way that could cause trouble. *facepalm*
3.) ARCHER: "Well, maybe if they'd bothered to read the genetic profile we sent..." Are you freaking kidding me?! Dipshit, a genetic profile isn't going to tell these people that dogs like to piss on trees!
4.) So, apparently Archer is a trained diplomat. I think this is the first time that's ever been revealed. How does he handle this diplomatic situation? By acting like a petulant jerk. Brilliant! Here's a quick tip for the writers - if you want us to believe a character is diplomatic, don't have him respond to a diplomatic situation by acting like a blowhard and a moron. You don't barge into someone else's house, start throwing your weight around, tell them what's what, act like a prideful buffoon and call it "diplomacy".
5.) So apparently Archer really, really wants to get into T'Pol's Vulcan panties. And, apparently, T'Pol might - possibly - want to let him unlock that achievement. Where in the actual fuck did this come from?! Jammer is right in that there has been precisely ZERO sexual tension or subtext between these two characters up until now. Even when T'Pol's breasts accidentally ended up in Archer's face back in "Shadows of P'Jem" there was no hint of sexual tension from either of them! Damn, and I thought the sexual subtext between Janeway and Chakotay was limited. This is practically non-existent.
6.) The Kreetassans. There's being humorously arrogant and then there's this. These people are so uptight and offense-prone that even if the episode was capable of being funny they would suck it all down the drain. If you're going to crank something up to 11 and beyond, make sure it's worth it.

Wow, even as a fan of ENT and of Archer as a character, this crap is awful. God bless John Billingsley, because Phlox is the only legitimately worthwhile part of this train wreck. His discussion with Archer about his family was easily the diamond in this sea of shit.

But, is this the worst of the franchise? Hardly. At least they didn't openly advocate for eugenics like TOS did in "The Mark of Gideon" or outright promote religious fanaticism to the point of murder like TNG did in "Homeward". Hell, it's not even the worst of ENT thus far. At least it didn't say "rape is funny.... as long as it happens to a man" like they did in "Unexpected". So, at least it doesn't promote murder or rape. Hardly high praise.
Set Bookmark
Luke
Sun, Feb 12, 2017, 11:41am (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S4: Retrospect

@Paul Allen

"No conclusive evidence, so his word against hers? Really uneasy about how easily everyonw turned to flat out disbelieving her."

What should they have done, then? Just listened and believed her?

There was no evidence against him. Isn't there still such a thing as innocent until proven guilty? A case of "he said/she said" isn't enough to justify simply believing her.
Next ►Page 1 of 19
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2018 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.