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: 573 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 23
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, May 19, 2019, 3:08pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

@Dom

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

I completely agree on both counts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Mertov

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

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

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

On the contrary.

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

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

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

So you want the last word, eh?

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

@Mistah Datah

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly.

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

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

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

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

Huh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not me, that's for sure.

And let me tell you another thing:

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

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

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

Oops... That was supposed to be:

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

@Dom

I actually liked "Move Along Home" :-)

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

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

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

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

@Booming

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

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

Pity. I was really starting to enjoy our conversations in the past few days.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, May 16, 2019, 7:29am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S2: The Child

@Lizzy Datalover

You misunderstood me. I'm on your side here :-)

I completely agree with you that Data has all the important qualities that humans have. He is a person no less than you or I. In fact, I find him to be a far better person then most humans I know.

My point was simply that the TNG writers often confused "being alive" with "being a person" when these terms refer to two completely different things. An amoeba is alive, but we don't consider it a person. The traditional definition of life (movement, growth, procreation etc) are simply not relevant to the issue at hand.

TL;DR

Data is a conscious, intelligent, self-aware being with desires and goals, and that makes him a person. That's all that matters.

@Booming
*cough* Lal *cough*
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, May 16, 2019, 1:21am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Mad Idolatry

@Booming

You said earlier that you feel guilty about having these discussions here because they are "off-topic". At this point, I agree with you. If we've reached the point were I need to explain why discriminating women/blacks/gays is different than hating Nazis, then there is little point to continue.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, May 15, 2019, 2:10pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S2: The Child

Data is obviously sentient and sapient.

Not sure why TNG insisted on using the word "alive" in this context, which is kinda misleading. Amoebas are also alive, after all.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, May 15, 2019, 5:07am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Mad Idolatry

Oops... seems like one line was cut off from the middle of my previous comment.

This:
"(and again, one could have"

Should have been:
"(and again, one could have universal ethics without being religious. See Star Trek and the Orville as examples)"
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, May 15, 2019, 4:54am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Mad Idolatry

"It is comparable to alchemy. At some point chemistry, physics and biology came around."

You need to brush up on your science history.

Modern chemistry evolved directly from alchemy. It has many of the same procedures and uses many of the same tools. Chemistry is basically alchemy augmented with the scientific method.

And if you want to argue that theology should also be augmented with the scientific method, you're not going to get any argument from me.

"Sooner or later we will really understand that brain thingy and after that it is only about achieving the desired effect through means that are deemed appropriate.
That may sound crazy now but I guarantee you it will happen. But don't worry it won't be as awful as it sounds... or maybe it will like advertisements or propaganda that really messes with your brain."

I see. So having a society that brain-washes the masses with scientific accuacy, is not "as awful as it sounds"?

The scary thing is that we're already 80% there. We already have targeted propaganda and targeted advertising that are created by psychology experts. We already have mega-corporations that track our every move and use the dirtiest psychological tricks for the sole purpose of making more money.

Me thinks you've just demonstrated why the notion that there's no absolute morality is so dangerous.

(and again, one could have

"Oh and no I don't think that there are universal truth."

Of-course there is.

Murder is wrong. Slavery is wrong. Prejudice is wrong. Trampling over other people's basic rights to sustain our own greed is wrong.

And get this: These things remain wrong even if society "decides" otherwise. Slavery was wrong in 19th century America no less than it is wrong now. And two plus two will always be four, even if society "decides" that it is five.

Sure, there are also grey areas. There's also considerable room for variations and personal/national/planetwide preferences. This too is part of the Universal Truth: there's more than one way to be a good person and/or to create a good society.

And I must admit, that I find it odd that you - of all people - would reject the idea of absolute ethical truth. At the very least, I would have expected you to realize that prejudice and discrimination are unethical in the absolute sense.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, May 15, 2019, 3:18am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: The Road Not Taken

@Galadriel
"...though ap­pa­rent­ly we dif­fer with re­spect to the prison es­cape se­quen­ce (I come from a coun­try where con­cen­tra­tion camps are not con­sider­ed a re­spect­able work­place)"

One of things that Star Trek and the Orville has taught us, is not to confuse the evilness of a cultural norm with the evilness of a specific individual.

And I've never argued that the guards in "Birthday Cake" were portrayed as saints (which would be ridiculous). But they weren't portrayed as evil, either. Most of them didn't use any kind of violence nor did they show any malice against the prisoners.

The only thing most of them were guilty of, is not questioning their situation and not realizing how fucked-up the whole thing is. Which is bad, I agree, but it still doesn't mean that they are evil unredeemable scum.

In fact, if you think about it, you'll realize that the vast majority of the people in today's world aren't any better. Most of them are cooperating with really bad things just because it's the cultural norm. Whether it's buying clothes that were made by child labor, or eating industrial-created meat (I'm not against eating meat in general, but what the modern food industry does to animals is appaling), or producing revenue for companies that make the world a worse place with their greediness.

Are all these people evil? Food for thought.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Tue, May 14, 2019, 3:42pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

And your point, Mertov?

Does the fact that there were always noisy narrow-minded fans that complain about everything new, provide new Trek shows with a blanket immunity against criticism?

People like me have explained exactly why we are refusing to accept DSC as a part of the Star Trek ethos. Hint: our points are more substantial then "A show with a French bald Captain whose name isn't Kirk is not Star Trek".

Perhaps you'd like to address the actual points we've raised, instead of making silly comparisons in a transparent attempt to mock those you disagree with?
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, May 12, 2019, 4:49pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: The Road Not Taken

@Dave MN

I think you meant to say:

Amusing link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1N5lZw7e78

;-)
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, May 12, 2019, 8:03am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: The Road Not Taken

Sweetness!
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, May 12, 2019, 4:11am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Mad Idolatry

@Dougie

"...but then life things happen that reinforce it."

Not surprising, because you *are* at the center of your personal universe. Each of us is at the center of their own universe. Ever feel like you're the main character of the universal story? That's the reason.

But why on earth would you believe that it only applies to you? Talk about hubris...

@Peter G.
"While I'm sure many Catholics were upset about a new way of thinking just because it was new, there were many 'legitimate' reasons to question this theory as well."

In addition to all the reasons you listed, there's also the fact that the simple Copernican model didn't quite agree with the observations. The fix for this had to wait until Kepler's breakthrough that the planetary orbits are ellipses rather than circles.

But the fact remains that in many parts of Europe, heliocentricism was opposed on religious grounds for a long time after these problems were solved. After Newton discovered his laws of gravity (I think 1666?) there was really no good reason to oppose it, yet the opposition was still there.

By the way, Galileo himself already used telescopes in 1609 and he discovered the Galilean moons (which most definitely *don't* orbit the earth) in 1610. So even at that early time, there were some strong grounds to question the status-quo.

(of-course we don't need to look so far back to make this point. Just look at the percentage of Christians who oppose evolution today, because of similar reasons)

@Booming
"I wouldn't say that we treat ourselves as unimportant just that there is no higher purpose and we have to come up with our own reasons and purposes without knowing that it makes any sense simply put existential nihilism."

Fair enough.

But surely you'll agree that not all human-made purposes are made equal? If I suddenly decide that my purpose is to go around and start killing people, that's not cool, right?

Or think of the values that Classic Trek and the Orville teach. Things like accepting others, cooperation, forgiveness, overcoming flaws and so forth. Are these just arbitrary goals? Or are these universal tenets that all sentient beings should strive for?

Note that I haven't mentioned God here. One does not, necessarily, need to believe in the existence of a higher being in order to accept the notion of some absolute standards of purpose and morality. You can call it utilitarianism, or logic, or "doing what's right" or "doing what's best for everyone in the long run" or whatever else fits your fancy.

But however you call it, you've defined a universal sense of purpose.

Whether you attribute it to an actual literal Universal Consciousness (God) or to a set of principles (similar to physical or mathematical laws), that's a whole different question.

"As long as you do not accept the orders of a human organization that claims to speak the truth in the name of that entity then that's fine with me."

I accept them for what they are: Attempt by mortals to connect with the divine, with varying levels of success.

I also see nothing wrong with being part of such a religious community. Walking this path together is far more efficient and fulfilling than doing so on your own.

But of-course, I don't accept any human-made organization as the final arbiter of what God wants. Humans are fallible. Besides, as I've already written on the Discovery thread, I trust no one :-)
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, May 12, 2019, 2:36am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

@JohnT

I guess you aren't worthy enough in his eyes, to speak as if you are in the same room with him. ;-)

At any rate, I second the appreciation to Jammer's work here.

@Alcoremor

Just because someone disagrees with Jammer on something or finds his ratings inconsistent for some reason, does not mean he doesn't appreciate and respect Jammer's reviews (not to mention his moderation of this site, which is of a caliber I've never seen elsewhere)

Also, I think that having some distance between us commenters and the owner of the site is a healthy thing. There's a huge amount of activity here. Would you *really* want every single person who has something to say about Jammer's review, to address his words personally to him?

I think most people refrain from doing that precisely because they respect him so much. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Though perhaps the best approach would be to ask Jammer himself what he'd prefer. So:

@Jammer

Do you prefer people to address you personally when they debate one of your reviews? Or do you prefer them to keep a respectful distance?
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhig
Fri, May 10, 2019, 5:41am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Mad Idolatry

@Booming

"@ Omicron
If there is a higher being doing all of this and if we believe the monotheistic interpretation of an omnipotent god then this being either went to great length to put us somewhere really average or we aren't special to this being. There is nothing special about our place in the galaxy, our galaxy even our supercluster isn't that special. We are at the complete opposite of where religions see us: in the absolute center."

This, pretty much, was the reason that the Catholic Church originally rejected Copernicus. The problem with argument, however, it is that it attributes petty human weaknesses to a Superhuman being.

Why on earth would you expect God to care about how "impressive" our location is? What makes us special is that we are self-aware. As Sagan once said (and Captain Mercer once stole) "We are the way for the Universe to know itself".

In short, our physical location is irrelevant. Perhaps we could excuse the 16th Century Church for not understanding this, given the primitive state of scientific knowledge at the time.

But a 21st century scholar, whether religious or secular, has no excuse to make a similar error.

"To me it just seems far more likely that we Humans come up with all these concepts like purpose or great saga to feel better about our relatively short existence."

Perhaps we did.

So? Does it make these concepts any less true?

After all, the story of humanity is OUR story. We can CHOOSE to treat ourselves as unimportant specks of dusts. Or we can CHOOSE to view ourselves as a part of something bigger.

One does not even have to be a theist in order to choose the latter route. Star Trek and the Orville advocate it, even though they are secular. Sagan advocated it, even though he was an atheist.

Once again, we have another demonstration of my previous claim that the difference between theists and atheists isn't a big as many people think.

"Were you see purpose I see physical laws."

Why do you believe that these two options mutually exclusive? Yes, the universe works in accordance to physical laws. So?

Stop for a moment to think about this: All the known physical laws of the universe can be summarized a single page of equations (The Standard Model of Particle Physics + General Relativity).

Assuming a purely materialistic view point for a moment, this single page of dense mathematics is what powers EVERYTHING in our universe. From the animals and the trees to the human mind to the mind-boggling way in which strands of DNA can tell a single cell to create a fully-functional baby in 9 months.

Now, I can't say for sure that these equations were designed for a purpose (though I certainly believe so). But I do find it funny when people (both atheists and religious) casually mention the laws of physics as if there's nothing totally awesome about them.

"The thought that yes my conscious may end but the matter that I am now will just become something else. To quote the very misunderstood founder from DS9:"The drop becomes the ocean again." ;)"

I gotta admit that I couldn't care less about where the atoms in my body end up in a million years. After all, the atoms in a human body are replaced all the time.

What matters to me, is that - in the here and now - I am contributing my small part to the ongoing story of consciousness in this universe.

Perhaps as an individual being, I will not be there to witness humanity's first interstellar ships. But I, like you and like every other human being on this planet, am a part of the story that will eventually take place among the stars.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, May 9, 2019, 7:42am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Mad Idolatry

@Dave MN

"If you are a member of any dogmatic religion, you believe 4,199 religious systems are wrong."

That's an excellent argument against dogmatic view points in general.

It has, however, absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether God exists.

It doesn't even serve as an objection to being a member of a given religion, unless you can demonstrate that they are following it dogmatically. This, really, has more to do with the specific religious person in question, and less to do with the specific religion he is practicing.

Also, you've yet to demonstrate that atheists in general are somehow less dogmatic in their philosophy. I've met people who quote Dawkins (for example) with the same brain-dead devotion as the most hard-core fundamentalist. There's absolutely no correlation between being a dogma-free thinker and belief/disbelief in the existence of God.

(for further evidence, I cite your own post. You've just equated theism with dogma without even realizing that the two aren't the same. Isn't that... well... dogmatic?)

"The gulf between a theist and an atheist really isn't that large, is it? ;)"

As Picard once said to Q: What you say in irony, I say in conviction.

The gulf between theists and atheists is mostly imaginary. We just make sense of the world around us in different ways. And the real enemy we should all be weary of isn't religion but prejudice, dogamtic thinking, and the notion that people who have a different perspective than us our somehow inferior.

It is also helpful to remember that we are a very young species. In all probability, we are all wrong about many things. Let us all try to remember that, shall we?

@Booming
"Why would a higher being place us on an mid sized planet flying around a mid sized sun in one of the smaller arms of a mid sized spiral galaxy which is part of galaxy group which is part of a super cluster which is part of a super cluster complex."

Why not?

I never understood this argument.

We are part of a 14 billion year old saga (and counting). The galaxies and stars and planets are part of this awesome story. Some of these planets eventually gave rise (with or without some direct divine intervention - the jury is still out on this one) to self-aware beings like us.

Doesn't this sound like a story that befits a higher being to write?
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, May 9, 2019, 5:48am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

Real allies really *are* few and far between. I, personally, trust no one (with very few exceptions). Doesn't mean I can't like certain people or respect them or find common grounds with them. But to actually trust them? Don't be ridiculous.

And that's a life lesson I've learned the hard way, believe me.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, May 9, 2019, 3:18am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

@Booming

It's all forgotten.

And regarding the fears and challenges of people like us: I get it. Believe me, I do.

It's a complicated situation of "damned if we do, damned if we don't" and there are no easy solutions. I guess that's why the Trek Future we all dream of is so difficult to achieve in reality, even though there are plenty of good people out there who could help make it happen.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, May 9, 2019, 2:46am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

@The Gorn

"I'm sure Y'all have already read this: ... "

Actually, no. It's the first time I've seen the actual origin of the term "Mary Sue".

And after reading that article, I don't think I'll ever use that term ever again. It very clearly originated in a culture that's not only misogynist but also one that's lacks empathy and understanding for the way young authors (of both genders) think and express themselves.

Yuck. What a pile of offensive cr*p.
(still doesn't excuse those who believe that badly written female protagonists should get a pass just because of their genders, though. Bad writing is bad writing, folks)
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, May 8, 2019, 6:50pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: The Road Not Taken

@RandomThoughts

"On the other hand, if Kelly wasn't on the Orville, who notices LaMar is really smart and makes him the head of engineering? *ouch* *brain hurts again* At least, he Seemed to be an engineer when they went to the Trench to find the ship, as he was the only one in the engine room trying to make the plan go forward."

I suspect that that being chased to extinction by genocidal robots would change the guy's priorities. No point in continuing to play dumb under these conditions, is there?

So it makes sense in this context.

I gotta admit though, that I didn't find this bit of LaMarr's characterization to be believable in the first place. I just can't square the dude's behavior in the first 10 episodes of season 1 with this revelation.
Next ►Page 1 of 23
▲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.