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: 592 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 24
Set Bookmark
Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 6:07pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S6: Spirit Folk

@TIM -1
"Sadly, I am midway through S-6 and getting closer to the end of the last virgin- viewing episodes of Star Trek as I have known it. I think I will start stretching them a child making the candy last."

You might want to give "The Orville" a shot, if you haven't done so already. It's a show inspired by Old Trek that shakes a few details up, including the fact that the crew relies far less on magic technobabble to solve their problems. They don't even have transporters (and I think you'd really appreciate their take on the holodecks as well). So if you like TOS and Enterprise, you should definitely check this one out.

A fair warning:

Fans of Old Trek tend to either adore the Orville or hate it with passion. The show has some comedic and dramatic elements that aren't for everyone. I, personally, fell in love with it immediately, but I've also seen Trekkies having the opposite reaction.

So I suggest you treat this as an experiment. Give the show a chance and see where it leads. If you end up loathing it, no biggie. Just stop watching. But if you end up liking it, than that's 26 fresh Trek-like episodes for you to watch (with another season coming up next year).
Set Bookmark
Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 11:05pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: Home

Advanced intelligent life - why not?

The iffy part is that they look pretty much identical to humans. Them, and their technology too. Even the most mundane things, like pillows and chairs would work differently in a high-gravity environment.

So yeah, it kinda spoils the immersion.

Still a good episode in my opinion, though. And to be honest: I'm not sure what alternative could work better from a story-telling perspective. I doubt showing realistic high-gravity dwelling people would make for compelling drama...
Set Bookmark
Mon, Sep 9, 2019, 8:43am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: Redemption, Part II


I've never said that "depicting a positive future" is the catch-all aspect by which everything in Star Trek should be measured by. I am simply saying that it is an important aspect of the show which cannot be ignored completely, when we're discussing the show's faults.

How much importance we should give to this aspect may be debatable, but ignoring it completely and pertending that it doesn't exist at all is ridiculous.

So yes, we definitely shouldn't use the same moral standards for TNG and a trash porn novel. Sorry, but there's no way such a notion could make any kind of sense.

"I mean, when the show really tried to push that stuff, it was practically a turnoff. Rather than looking 'enlightened' or 'tolerant', the cast was smug and condescending and arrogant and frankly unlikeable."

Well, there is such a thing as trying too hard.

I totally agree with you that TNG improved (both in story-telling and in the optmistic vision it projected) when it became less preachy.

If a writer wants to show a better future and a better humanity, they gotta DEMONSTRATE it with they way their characters ACT. They can't just have them endlessly babble on how awesome and great they are, because that's not going to convince the audience.

Piller understood that. Post-TOS Roddenberry, to a large extent, didn't.

"But there are a lot of Star Trek fans who are very defensive about ST being a good show *for science* ... So why is their interpretation of Trek one that not everyone needs to follow, but yours is?"

First of all, the notion of Star Trek as an optimistic view of the future is not "my" interpertation. It's a direct statement of intent from the show's creator.

(and one does not need to idolize a show creator to realize that his intent matters. Star Trek is his baby, so you can bet your a*s his intent matters).

Secondly, I don't recall ever saying that "everyone" needs to follow anything. Perhaps you can refresh my memory?

Thirdly, people who claim Star Trek to be anything close to "scientifically accurate" are factually wrong. I'm not sure how you can even suggest this as a valid "interpertation" of Trek with a straight face.

(BTW Trek *is* good for science in a different sense: It has an incredibly positive view of science and technology as a force for good in humanity's future. Personally I find this to be far more important then getting this detail or that detail right).

Thirdly, all this has nothing to do with the question of whether these people are "true fans" or not. The definition of a Star Trek fan, is a person who enjoys Star Trek enough to consider themselves Star Trek fans.

In short, if a person thinks that Star Trek is the pinnacle of scientific accuracy, then they are factually wrong, but that doesn't make then any less of a fan.

"When those people blow up about a silly science error and say that it destroys what Star Trek stands for, do you just say 'dude, it's a mistake, get over it?' "

Actually no.

It's not my business to tell another fan what errors they should gloss over, or what things should be important to them.

Though I *would* wonder, how a person who blows up about every silly science error could even enjoy a show like Star Trek. The show is so full of scientific inaccuracies that they must get angry all the time.

Have you ever met such a Trek fan for real? I'm genuinely asking.

"I don't find the catsuits to be a worse fault than some of the poor writing or poor science or other hokey aspects."

Niether do I.

I've never said the catsuits were any worse than the other faults. The crew's smugness in "The Neutral Zone" bothers me more than any wardrobe-based decision. And at times, stupid story-telling or an exceptionally bad piece of science manages to bother me more, as well.

I'm simply saying that they *are* a fault. And that we should take such faults more seriously in a show that claims to depict a better future then when they occur in a work that doesn't aspire to such ideals.
Set Bookmark
Sat, Sep 7, 2019, 11:01pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: Redemption, Part II


While I agree with you that Star Trek is far from perfect, I also agree with Booming that comparing Trek to "50 shades" is a complete non-sequitur. After all, you said that TNG is your favorite show. Why is that? Tell me the reasons why TNG is your all-times favorite TV show, and right there is the refutation for your comparison.

TNG is *about* something very specific. It is supposed to show us a future free of prejudice and discrimination and so forth. This is evident both in the stories that TNG tells, and in the explicit words of the show's creator.

Did they always succeed on this front? No.

But that was the intention, and this is the main reason that TNG was loved so much (it was a different, more optimistic era). And the way I see it, there's nothing wrong in judging a show (or a book) by the very standards it sets for itself.

This, by the way, is also the reason why science gaffes don't bother me on Trek unless they are really *really* awful. Star Trek was never intended to be a hard sci fi show, so why judge it by this standard? IOW unless they're going the warp 10 space lizard sex route, I can usually suspend my disbelief and enjoy the ride.

(as for TOS, its age needs to be considered as well. Tons of TOS are overly sexist, but it was still far better than other TV series in the 1960's. It was very progressive for its time, which is all that matters)
Set Bookmark
Sat, Sep 7, 2019, 10:26pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: Redemption, Part II

"Right, well I’m sure there are fans who’d argue that TOS with the miniskirts, open vests and all is *true* Star Trek and without that it feels like a different show. I think we can make an educated guess what Roddenberry would’ve preferred on the matter."

Oh no... dear God, not this sh*t again...

You know, just a few days ago, there was a guy here (forgot his username) who stated that he doesn't consider DS9 to be "Real Star Trek" because of all the war-mongering. I love DS9 and I love it as Trek, but I would never dream comparing such a person to those shallow people who rejected DS9 because "if it's not on the Enterprise, it ain't Trek". Because I can see his point of view and respect it, even though I don't agree with it at all.

Why can't you do the same? Why this need to make such snide remarks against those you disagree with? And do we *really* have to suffer through these stupid fan wars on a TNG discussion page of all places?! If there's one thing we can all agree on, I think, is our appreciation for TNG.

So just stop it, alright?
Set Bookmark
Sat, Sep 7, 2019, 4:33pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S4: These Are the Voyages...

In our family Trek-rewatch we're going to get to ENT S4 soon.

We aren't willing to skip any episodes, but niether are we willing to treat this abomination of an episode as the series finale.

So we're going to simply switch the viewing order: We'll pluck "These Are the Voyages" somewhere in the middle of the season, and treat "Terra Prime" as the true finale. I think Terra Prime is a good note to end the series on.

(if you have the time the editing skills, you can even do better: rearrange the scenes from "Terra Prime" so it ends with Archer's speech and fade from that to the "Space... the Final Frontier" of the 3 Enterprise Captains from "These Are the Voyages". That would be THE perfect way to end Enterprise)
Set Bookmark
Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 7:11pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: Redemption, Part II

"To say ENT 'tanked' because of decon scenes is ridiculous."

It obviously wasn't the only reason, but I still think it was a factor.

The problem with ENT wasn't that it was "more sexual" but that the exploitative scenes were so embarassingly stupid. Things like Trip's neuropressure sessions, for example, or the entire T'Pol subplot in "Bounty".

When your attempt to titillate the fans just gets them to cringe and moan "oh no,
not *that* again", then you have a problem.

And I say this as a person who generally loves Enterprise. I adore nearly everything about that show, but when these stupid wannabe-sex scenes show up, I really *really* want to fast-forward.

So yes, I can certainly believe that there were quite a few fans who abandoned ENT because of these scenes.

"Voyager... Kate was really pissed when they brought in 7. Everyone says it gave Voyager a ratings boost, but I didn't see it and it certainly didn't last."

Indeed, according to the raw numbers, replacing Kes with Seven accomplished absolutely nothing... which is weird.

Not that I would expect anybody to watch Voyager just because of a catsuit, but I'm amazed that the *character* of Seven didn't give Voyager's rating a boost. She's infinitely more interesting then Kes, and (with a few exceptions) also got far better stories.
Set Bookmark
Fri, Aug 30, 2019, 3:40am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: First Contact

Well, there you have it folks. The expert has spoken.

We now return you to our regular programme.
Set Bookmark
Thu, Aug 29, 2019, 8:47pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: First Contact


"It is to certain degree insecurities but also the damn comment virus. Men have so fragile egos it is crazy. Maybe it was always like that. I always have a hard time understanding why especially men cannot accept the expertise of somebody else."

Seriously? The only reason you can fathom for people disagreeing with your views, is that they have fragile egos? Talk about hubris...

"If I meet a geologist and he tells me something about earth I feel no need to argue with him/her about a topic he knows a thousand times more about. I would listen and see if I can profit from her/his far greater knowledge."

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you don't come across as a person with "far greater knowledge". You come across as a person who is completely clueless about the human condition. No offense, but that's how you come across.

Especially when you start quoting articles as if they are some gospel truth. I have nothing against sociology, but it is not a hard science. Human nature is far too complex for it to be a hard science. So the minute you start claiming that such a simplistic model is "a scientific fact", you lose all your credibility as an expert in the field.

This is doubly troubling when we realize the stakes involved in making an inaccurate statement. If an astrophysicists makes a mistake, nobody gets hurt. If a sociologist treats a simplistic theory about human behavior as a hard fact, the result is usually prejudice towards certain groups of people.

And I'm saying this as a person who actually suffered greatly in his youth due to precisely this kind of dogmatic thinking.

So get off your high horse, alright?
Set Bookmark
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
Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 7:13am (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S1: Fight or Flight


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
Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 7:28pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: Galaxy's Child

"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.

"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
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
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
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.

"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?' "


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
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
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
Sun, May 26, 2019, 7:39am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S5: Rapture


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.

"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?

"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
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
Sun, May 19, 2019, 3:08pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2


"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
Sat, May 18, 2019, 9:06pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2


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
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. "


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."


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
Sat, May 18, 2019, 6:34pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

"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
Sat, May 18, 2019, 6:06pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

"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.

"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
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..."
Next ►Page 1 of 24
▲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.