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: 69 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 3
Set Bookmark
Quincy
Sat, Feb 16, 2019, 1:25am (UTC -6)
Re: ORV S2: Deflectors

This episode, while enjoyable for what it was, didn't quite work for me in its execution. It was basically TOS's "Court Martial" + TNG's "The Outcast" = The Orville's "Deflectors." To be honest, Lokar just wasn't a very sympathetic character. He was a bit of a d!ck. I didn't like the guy. It's possible it was just the actor was miscast. This seemed like it would be a very good role for Christopher Judge of Stargate fame. He played almost this exact style of character for years and he nailed it. It's also possible it's just the way the character was written. He's unnecessarily yelling at the woman serving cupcakes. I don't know if that was meant to be humorous or not, but he just came off like a walking 6 foot dildo. He cares more about his experiment than the safety of the ship, when LaMarr wants to shut it down. He's showing up at his ex's cabin, when his ex clearly wanted nothing to do with him. What was the purpose of that? That's harassment. He's lying in wait in Talla's cabin without her permission. She's a total stranger. That was just creepy. The only reason it wasn't really creepy is because Talla could punt him and his testicles to the nearest star base without breaking a toenail. I felt they should've made him more sympathetic by making him more likable. If they had a sympathetic, likable character, who actually committed suicide, that to me would've been far more powerful. Even if the ending played out the same, this guy just didn't engender empathy from me. A more likable character would have.

I also wanted more of a mystery. They started the show off as if it were just another relationship episode, like we just had with Isaac. Then suddenly it turns into a murder investigation. Fine. Give me an actual investigation. Keep the audience in total darkness as to what's going on and slowly reveal it as Talla discovers it. Have Talla go over his personal logs so we can get into his head, leading up to his murder. Forensically search his quarters to find clues. Examine his background. Run simulations in the holodeck. I wanted something like what TNG's "Schisms" gave us with the holodeck scene where they were building the examination table. TNG was generally very good at this type of thing, like the poker scene in TNG's "Cause and Effect," where they discover they're in a time loop. I wanted them to show me Talla was a detective who could ferret out who dunnit. For me Alara would've worked much better in this episode. I have no affinity for Talla at all. Alara's love life troubles had already been explored and she is a very sympathetic and likable character. This would've worked perfectly for her. They could've had Lokar be a former unrequited love interest of Alara's, just two ships passing in the night without Alara knowing quite why. They could've set this up over several episodes with Alara, culminating in one final episode, like they did Finn and Isaac or Mercer and Teleya. This would have been more powerful, since Alara's feelings would've been deeper than having her just meet Lokar.

The problem is as I've said in the past The Orville isn't vehicle for that. They were never equipped to give me a TNG puzzle that could engender that feeling of mystery or suspense. They really don't have enough depth to pull off the story they were trying to tell. In any case, while the episode was watchable, I can't rate it higher than two and half stars max. It's not something I'm going to remember or look back fondly on. I might watch it again, but only if it's the only sci fi on television at the time.


@Charles J

There wasn't any clunky metaphors, despite Jack's claim. It's a sci fi show. That means sci fi is the vehicle that gets the ride along audience to the destination. The sci fi chosen for this particular episode was an exploration of a monosexual, repressed, alien culture. The whole purpose of this episode is NOT merely commentary on "bigotry, sexuality and gender." IMO the purpose of this episode is to reverse the situation so that the predominantly heterosexual audience can better empathize with victims of sexual bigotry. It's White Man's Burden or the defense's closing arguments in "A Time to Kill" for straight people. It's an exercise in what if THIS horrible thing happened to YOU or someone YOU care about. It's a worthwhile exercise.

They chose to tell the story through Talla's eyes for an obvious reason. She's the outsider looking in the window and wondering what the hell is going on in the living room. She's flabbergasted as to how something so natural as two heterosexual people getting together could blow up into such a tragedy. This is ostensibly the same position the majority of the viewers are in. These are the people authors want to clue in about what's going on. It's the same thing that TNG did with the J'naii in "The Outcast." That is also seen through mostly Riker's eyes. It's a viable method. If the target audience, straight people, presumably have much the same point of view as Talla, then you can use Talla's pov to lead that audience to a more clued in vantage point by the end of the episode. Or at least, that's the plan. The only other person who could possibly do this is Lokar, but he's not starting from the same vantage point as the audience. He's a total stranger already mired in the muck of his totally alien civilization, so that wouldn't work. Better to have a regular cast member, who was once peeping in the window, be sitting in the living room. She's still an outsider, but now much closer to the action.

As far as Talla lecturing Klyden, she was minding her own business, feeling crappy about the heavy guilt trip Lokar laid on her. This asshole, Klyden, intrudes on her personal reflection to offer his unsolicited gratitude. She tells him to stay the ?#&% away from her. She has every right to do that. He's an asshole. She clearly wants nothing to do with him. He should've recognized that and just walked away. That would be the end of it. Instead, this moron just has to know why. She simply tells him why he's an asshole that she wants nothing to do with. It is also her right to do just that. Since it seems the objective is to bring the viewer from the common point of view to a more empathetic vantage point, this makes perfect sense to me. Somebody has to explain to Klyden why he's an asshole. That someone has to actually have an effect on Klyden's mindset, so that he's left standing there looking and feeling like the asshole that he is. The person has to be heterosexual, because most of the intended audience is heterosexual, and the objective is to draw them down a path from the common position to a more empathetic position. There are only two heterosexual people in the entire episode who can possibly do that: Talla and Lokar. Clearly, Klyden is not going to give a damn about what Lokar says for obvious reasons. It can only be Talla. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the story in this particular aspect.
Set Bookmark
Quincy
Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 9:22pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: An Obol for Charon

@Jason R.

I didn't say you were talking about Riker. I'm explaining that, since Riker and anyone, but the target, were safe, he had any number of choices, which he intentionally abdicated BEFORE beaming down.

There is simply no excuse for not taking a full security detail down there. There's no excuse for not taking Data, who has superhuman speed down there. There's no excuse for not simply beaming her up instead of beaming down in the first place. There's no excuse for standing there looking retarded, instead of repeatedly stunning her to the ground, while advancing to a more secure location. There's no way to excuse what must have been Riker's decision BEFORE he beamed down. It's ridiculous to try.

I watched the episode a few hours ago. The guy was a murdering piece of crap, engaging in deadly raids that were ongoing, which is why the federation wanted to put a stop to it. What Riker did is akin to a prison guard killing another much less despicable inmate that he was romantically involved with, in order to protect Jeffrey Dahmer from being killed, when he had every opportunity to make another decision. You can't be as holier than thou as Star Trek sometimes attempts to make these characters out to be, while simultaneously making decisions like these. Your position is simply not credible. I'm glad you convinced yourself, cause you didn't convince anybody else.

@Robert
Thanks.
Set Bookmark
Quincy
Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 3:45pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: An Obol for Charon

@Jason R. "It is a little muddier than you imply. Just her touch was deadly, so arguably, Riker could not risk her shrugging off the stun (which she already showed superhuman resistence to) long enough to lay a fingernail on this guy."

Actually, it's not. Dr. Crusher states out loud that it was specifically engineered to kill a certain family and that it's perfectly safe if you don't have that DNA pattern. Therefore, any one of the alternatives I suggested would've worked. She was no danger to Riker, he could've ran over there while she sank to her knee. No matter what anyone says. She's not about to shout, "this isn't even my final form!" and suddenly turn from a super assassin into a super duper assassin. In order for what we see on the screen to occur, Riker had to decide 1) he and he alone was going down to handle the situation and 2) he was going to kill her if she did not cease and desist her assassination attempt. That's assholery 101, considering she was only going after people who wiped out her family. And not only that, people who were still raiding and killing people to this day.

@OmicronThetaDelta
That wasn't aimed at you. Your objections have been measured and reasonable. Others on here and elsewhere are acting like Burnham is the scum of the earth. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
Set Bookmark
Quincy
Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 1:26am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: An Obol for Charon

I just find it interesting that people indict Burnham for killing T'Kuvma, but I didn't see anyone here mention what Riker did in "The Vengeance Factor." People actually defend his actions, saying he had no choice. These arguments fall flat on their face when we can watch the exact sequence of events and SEE that he had a choice.

He beams down and stuns one of the target's bodyguards. He's not much farther from the target than the assassin. Instead of advancing immediately, he simply stands there and points his phaser at her. Clearly, when he stuns her, she doubles over in severe pain and is knocked backwards a step. He stuns her again and she's not only knocked backwards a step, but she sinks to her knees, leaving him PLENTY of time to run over there and grab her or the target or at least position himself between them.

Riker just stands there. Had he kept stunning her repeatedly, while advancing, she would've been incapacitated long enough to reach her and physically stop her. He doesn't even make the attempt. Telling her target, "stay perfectly still," instead of "get the hell out of the way!" was incredibly stupid.

This is NOT debatable. The authors clearly mean for us to conclude Riker had no choice. However, that's NOT what's on the screen. What's shown is so demonstrably retarded it's ridiculous. Riker had numerous choices. 1) Beam down with a whole security detail. If one phaser hurt her enough to buckle her to her knees, 6 phasers on stun would've taken her down. 2) Fire on stun repeatedly and rapidly. 3) Bring Data, who can move at superhuman speed. 4) Beam down between the assassin and the target. 5) Advance immediately instead of standing there looking retarded. 6) Beam her ass up, instead of beaming down in the first place.

These are just some of the choices he had. I can only conclude he'd already decided to kill her, despite these obvious, numerous alternatives, if she refused to surrender, just like most police officers would today. Riker was not emotionally compromised, as Burnham was, by both her mentor and captain's death AND her prior history with the Klingons. There is simply no excuse for the ending of this episode, yet people defend it by and large. Go and watch it on daily motion and tell me that's not one of the most retarded endings of any TNG episode. Riker doesn't take any heat for this.

I understand that Burnham's actions had more ramifications, due to failing her mission to stop the war that the KLINGONS started. However, her actions are clearly emotionally compromised. And while she shouldn't get a pass I don't think she should be utterly vilified the way people are doing.
Set Bookmark
Quincy
Mon, Feb 11, 2019, 5:18pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: An Obol for Charon

@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi

The Klingons started the conflict when they attempted to kill her and she killed one of them in self-defense. She was attempting to stop the war with a Vulcan Hello. Would it have worked? Who knows? They quickly became outnumbered, so it's up in the air. It's a good bet standard Starfleet protocols wouldn't have fared any better. The Klingons were already gearing up for war.
Set Bookmark
Quincy
Sat, Feb 9, 2019, 6:44pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: An Obol for Charon

@Stargazer "You should think about the adjectives you use to describe things you dislike. There are thousands of words you can use that do not insult millions of people."

It took a moment for me to know wth you were talking about.

1) Be more specific.
2) I don't insult millions of people. Never in my life have I called a disabled person, moving at the speed god made them to move at, retarded. I reserve that word for people who somehow can't get up to the speed they were born for. If that's a problem for some folks, then that's their problem, not mine.
3) Manufactured outrage doesn't move me. Neither does politically "correct" propaganda.

@Stargazer "Look at the Rotten Tomatos score. Read the critics reviews. Look at the grades the AV Club, for example, gives. DSC at this point is the most critically succesful Star Trek show in history. More than TOS was. More than TNG was. And certainly far more than DS9 and VOY were. No other Trek series has been welcomed this positively by people who review television for a living and certainly know their stuff. Which makes the violent dislike from so-called Trek fans even more unbelievable."

No one should be looking at Rotten Tomatoes. That garbage is manipulated, bought and paid for propaganda. Nothing more unbelievable than that nonsense. People who need to be told first what to like, in order to give themselves permission to like it, then like Saru, they need to hurry up and have their ganglia fall off.
Set Bookmark
Quincy
Sat, Feb 9, 2019, 4:24pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: An Obol for Charon

Wow. This was terrible. The main idea was solid, but the execution after the sphere infects their universal translator was god awful. Discovery has always had problems with disjointed execution, but it got dialed up to 11 this episode.

And that whole plot with Tilly. God damn, please kill her ass off. I can't stand her, neither the actress, nor the character itself. If they wanted a quirky and discombobulated character they should've gotten someone like Carrie Preston from the Good Wife. I know she's older than Tilly's supposed to be, but the character could've been rewritten.

And enough with the environmentalism in space. That crap is putrid. The universe can't be that fragile or none of us would be here with neutron stars, supernova, black holes, quasars, dark energy, colliding galaxies, etc releasing metric f#&% tons of energy mankind could never hope to match. I. Simply. Do not. Believe. That. Bull$#!%. It was the same with the TNG anti-warp episode. Jesus Christ on a crucifix. It's just not credible.

That whole Tilly story arc with the dirty booger alien is rancid. And not just because it focuses so much screen time on Tilly. This episode could've been so good if they'd just focused on the alien sphere. It didn't need anything else. Certainly, not some stupid story line about booger extraterrestrials kidnapping annoying crew members. They keep trying to overload every single episode with, not just single stand alone plots, but multiple story arcs. With the sphere, Spock, and Saru, how the hell is that not enough? Why in god's name would you stuff yet another story ARC into this episode?

That whole scene with Burnham and Saru just went on and on so long that it became too maudlin; I wanted to blow my cookies all over my screen. I'm really glad they didn't kill off Saru, but there was no reason to make that scene that sappy if they weren't going to go through with it. It was over the top. Also, I'm not sure if I like the new development with Saru or not. It could go either way. It has plenty of potential, but I'm not confident that Discovery's writers and show runners can pull it off.

All these bridge crew characters are just place holders. They gave them more lines this episode than usual, but they've yet to give them all personalities. At this point, I'm not sure how they'd go about it. It's annoying when I hear them speak, because I know they're just cardboard cut outs that aren't likely to ever get developed. I don't even know or care to know any of their names. I thought the engineer from the asteroid was going to be good addition, but to bring her on just to out snark Stamets, as someone above pointed out, is retarded. One asshole character is enough. Stamets took a lot of last season to grow on me to where he completely fits on the show for me. Who needs two assholes in your show? That's like bringing in another Dr. McCoy to insult Spock or, another Pulaski to talk crap about Data.

I know all Treks start off slow and cumbersome, but there should be some signs of Discovery's cast hitting it's stride. Everybody looked like amateurs this episode. I'm a fan of Discovery, but this was a set back for me.
Set Bookmark
Quincy
Wed, Feb 6, 2019, 10:22pm (UTC -6)
Re: ORV S2: A Happy Refrain

@Lynos

1) But it's ALWAYS a practical element with women in regards to their children. Claire made the same practical considerations, when she saw how her kids responded to Isaac. ONLY THEN does she go on to have other more tender emotions about it, which are a luxury Sarah Connor doesn't have, due to the extreme nature of her situation. If you read my posts, I'm talking about Isaac fulfilling the role of being a father figure for Claire's children FIRST. That is necessarily a practical consideration. Then comes the other stuff. Clearly, Claire is not in an extreme situation. She's free to indulge all of her emotions. And in fact, a woman's emotions are indeed practical in an evolutionary context. Their purpose is to bind women to suitable mates. There's literally NOTHING flowery about women's emotions when you analyze their true purpose.

2) Sarah Connor is a special case. She's not feeling tender emotions for anybody, not since Kyle Reece died. Every choice she made afterwards was not only for John, but the future of the human race. She buried her emotions in T2 because she thought it made her stronger. It didn't; it made her unstable. If Sarah Connor were not in an extreme situation (running for her life, future of the human race hanging in the balance, hunted by nigh unstoppable machines, mourning the love of her life, fearing the future of her son, etc), you can bet your sweet ass that she'd be indulging her emotions. Maybe not with Ahhhnold, but certainly with somebody. And since people anthropomorphize everything, Cyber Arnold would have as good a chance as the next man in a normal situation, like when she was waitress Sarah, instead of warrior Sarah.

3) Yes, I do count the protective emotions she feels towards John. They're the same emotions 99.99% of all women feel, especially in extreme situations, so there's no reason to discount them. Also, it's erroneous that she's operating on pure logic. Through that whole movie she's living on the edge of an emotional breakdown. We see desperation right when she's introduced in the mental ward and she's pleading for release. We see panic when she first catches sight of the T-800. We see overwhelming fear when she's chastising John, whom she hasn't seen in years, about risking everything coming to save her. When she's watching her son with the machine, there's definite emotion there. It's subdued. It's buried. But it's definitely there.

Finally, she knows her son is secure. Finally she knows he has the perfect protection, better than she herself could provide. Her ever present fear is eased. She's relieved. She can finally leave him in someone else's care and focus on the desperation that's been driving her for more than a decade. We then see her losing her shit when she goes to assassinate Dyson. She has a total emotional breakdown. There's no way in hell she was operating on pure logic AT ANY POINT in that movie. Saying she's operating on pure logic at any time, is like saying Sandra Bullock's character in Bird Box ****SPOILER*** is operating on a pure logic when she refuses to even name her children and treats them more like military recruits than kids. Such behavior is pragmatic, certainly given the circumstances, but there's an omnipresent undercurrent of fear guiding everything she does.

4) In order to claim their family at the end of T2 is based solely on necessity, you'd have to totally ignore how John feels at the end of that movie. He's completely anthropomorphized the T-800. As far as John is concerned, he's the father he never had. If it was possible for John to do so, due to his being a child with inescapable emotional needs, then it would be possible for Sarah to do so, if only she didn't have all that baggage concerning lost loves and murderous machines informing her every action. Guess what? Claire doesn't have any of that.

5) And no we don't need to ground anything. They've been setting up this episode since the shuttle crash last season. That's enough grounding. You're watching the wrong show if you want some deep romantic character development beyond what they've shown. At its heart, The Orville is a comedy. This episode was a rom com whether anyone wants it to be or not. They were never going to give you what you're asking for. People keep reacting to the Orville like it's Trek. It's not Trek. It's not ever going to be as deep as Trek at it's best. (Not that Trek was ever any good at romance anyway.) It's become fashionable for haters of Discovery to claim The Orville is the only real Trek on television right now, but those people don't know what they're talking about. If people stop expecting sudden onset Trek and just watch The Orville for what it actually is, they'll enjoy it a lot more.

I really can't understand why people insist on something The Orville isn't even equipped for. If you want a deep exploration of human - A.I. interaction there are much better shows for this: such as Travelers, Humans, Westworld, Person of Interest, and Battlestar Galactica, just to name a few.

Apologies for the Great Wall of Text.
Set Bookmark
Quincy
Tue, Feb 5, 2019, 7:36pm (UTC -6)
Re: ORV S2: A Happy Refrain

@Jammer

I think we have a clear difference of expectations. I'm not looking for any deep exploration of A.I. from the Orville. It's the wrong show for that. I got that exploration from TNG, Voyager, and recently Travelers. There are so many good shows in that regard, I certainly wouldn't be looking to the Orville for such an exploration.

Recalling his other work, I wouldn't expect Seth to be capable of such an exploration anyway, no matter how much of a Trek fan he is. We can tell he's not thinking too deeply on the subject, when Seth literally pirates TNG's concept of friendship from Data's perspective, when he has Mercer say, "Your various programs are used to her and, it turns out, she's not so easy to just... delete" to explain Isaac's anomalous behavior.

I was simply taking what the Orville is giving us at face value. Isaac is depicted as sapient, at least somewhat creative, capable and competent at many things, but inept at human relations. They show Isaac as unintentionally fulfilling the role of surrogate dad and companion. I'm actually looking at things entirely from Claire's perspective, not Isaac's.

Recall Terminator 2 and the scene where Sarah Connor is reflecting on The T-800's relationship with her son. She says, "Watching John with the machine, it was suddenly so clear. The Terminator would never stop, it would never leave him. And it would never hurt him, never shout at him or get drunk and hit him or say it was too busy to spend time with him. It would always be there and it would die to protect him. Of all the would-be fathers who came and went over the years, this thing, this machine was the only one who measured up. In an insane world, it was the sanest choice."

This is what I'm talking about in regards to Isaac being a father figure for Claire's children. The T-800 isn't even sapient, like Isaac is, at this point in the movie. He's just a very sophisticated robot, yet Sarah Connor vocalizes almost exactly what I think Claire's conclusion would be with regards to Isaac and her children. And although Sarah wouldn't be the type of woman to jump Isaac's undercarriage, due to her history, it's really not that far of a distance from this mindset to Claire's under more pleasant circumstances.
Set Bookmark
Quincy
Tue, Feb 5, 2019, 11:53am (UTC -6)
Re: ORV S2: A Happy Refrain

@wolfstar
"But her desire to pursue a relationship with someone who she knows will never be attracted to her (as he's both asexual and aromantic) is a contrivance, and should have been scrutinized more. "

Really?!? Some women in real life are known to sometimes pursue relationships with gay men. How is it contrived at all that a lonely woman might pursue a relationship with a full fledged battery operated boyfriend, who actually walks, talks, and takes care of your kids?

I think both you and Jammer are giving the human race too much credit. Lonely people will form attachments to almost anything. Give them something that walks and talks and it's a whole new ball game.

We know for a fact that lonely men will sometimes form very deep attachments to sex dolls, which cost sometimes tens of thousands of dollars. I think you're having trouble with the notion that women, given a close enough facsimile, would exhibit similar behaviors.

Just look at the relationship objectively. Isaac has been fulfilling the role of surrogate father and companion since that shuttle crash. In that very first episode Claire is shown struggling to control and relate to her kids. Isaac steps in and handles it smoothly and swiftly. From that moment on her kids take to Isaac like the father they never had. Claire cannot possibly fail to witness that as a mother who loves her children. It would be impossible for any woman to not feel endearment towards a walking talking being who was able to provide her children with what she never could.

It isn't far fetched at all that she could've in her own mind built upon that endearment and become romantically attracted to Isaac. Lonely people do it all the time. They fall in love with that Nigerian Prince who shows up nowhere but emails and always needs money. They fall in love with that voice on the phone that they've never met, last name Fish, first name Cat. And guess what, these people I just described are getting a helluva lot less from the people they're romantically infatuated with than Claire was getting from Isaac.

And don't pretend that since Claire seems like she's got it all together she certainly wouldn't be engaged in activities like that or be subject to emotions in that manner. That's silly. In real life, we've had multiple presidents, CEOs, senators, etc caught with their pants down, engaging with much more ridiculous activities than any shown on this show. Congressman sending dick pics. Presidents who "grab 'em by the p*$$y." We had two Michigan State Representatives Todd Courser and Cindy Gamrat, having an affair with each other that ultimately lead to their ejection from the Statehouse. So Claire being otherwise well put together is COMPLETELY irrelevant. The woman was lonely. She's a single mother. She was at her wits end with her two fatherless sons. Then Isaac comes along and gives her children what she never could. Would every woman respond romantically to that? Of course not. Would some women respond romantically to that? You bet your sweet ass. And many of those will be lonely ass women, otherwise reasonable, maybe even the wisest people you know, who nevertheless would jump right on Isaac's holographic Johnson.
Set Bookmark
Quincy
Sat, Feb 2, 2019, 12:31am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: New Eden

Booming said: "And reducing women to their looks is a misogynistic behavior."

Clearly, this is nonsense.

Gil said:
"I don’t particularly find a neurotic, chubby chick floundering about habitually breaking protocol, disregarding orders and generally making an ass of herself either endearing or amusing. Remember Barclay?"

Gil gives a five part description of the Tilly character, which is pretty accurate. No one has been reduced to looks. Chubbiness was simply mentioned along with four other character qualities. And in the next breath he mentions Barclay in the same vein. Barclay has all of those qualities he finds annoying, except chubbiness. That totally torpedoes this nonsensical, half-ass "misogyny" argument.
Set Bookmark
Quincy
Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 9:06pm (UTC -6)
Re: ORV S2: A Happy Refrain

Aw, man. This episode was hilarious. That's what I've been missing from the Orville lately. But they delivered the goods this episode. That scene with Isaac sitting on the couch in his under shirt and drawers. lmao!

The only thing this episode was missing was Isaac pulling out a Swiss Army Penis that vibrates at 30 million cycles per second. But other than that it was nearly perfect.

I give it 3.5 lenny faces:

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ͡° ͜ʖ
Set Bookmark
Quincy
Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 4:08pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: New Eden

@Booming

Nonsense. You certainly implied he was a misogynist with your snarky post:

"Very good. Your really put some thought into this. I will just copy paste this from the wikipedia page about Misogyny:" Misogyny is manifested in many different ways, from jokes to pornography to violence to the self-contempt women may be taught to feel toward their own bodies."
Have a nice day."

In any case, perhaps, you should clarify your position. Your introductory argument was a bit vague and yet at the same time self-righteous. How exactly is misogyny being "manifested" by non-misogynists?

"I did not say that he is a misogynist. I said mentioning the body shape of Tilly in a negative way without any reason is misogynistic. And what does that have to do with him watching Seinfeld and me not witnessing that. He made a comment, I criticized that and then he came up with this Seinfeld example which has absolutely no relevance to him commenting on the body shape of her. That is really the dumbest line of argument I have ever encountered. "I wrote something misogynistic but I could have written something else about somebody else therefor the comment I made isn't misogynistic." Brilliant."

Again, how is misogyny being "manifested" by non-misogynists. Couldn't Gil be a fitness buff who would comment on anyone who was chubby? Couldn't he simply be insulting a character he already doesn't like, not because she's a woman, but because she's annoying for many reasons? Do you have any evidence that indicates he was specifically targeting women?

You:
What's George got to do, got to do with it?
What's George but second hand side character?
What's George got to do, got to do with it?

Me: I'm glad you asked.

Gil's argument appeared to be, from my perspective, if I say precisely the same things about a male analogue of the Tilly character, would that make me a misandrist? If I'm misstating your position, please, correct me, Gil. In other words, he appeared to be asking, if "mentioning the body shape of George Costanza in a negative way without any reason" would be misandry being "manifested." Rather than address his point, you side stepped it with a brief moment of perfunctory hand-waving.

Gil's question is legitimate. He appeared to be attempting to discover whether or not you're a rational debater. In other words, he was trying to establish who he's talking to, someone who's rational or someone who's irrational. (Again, correct me if I'm wrong, Gil.) A rational debater should've been able to give him a rational argument as to how his post exhibited any misogyny at all, rather than, "George Costanza is a beloved character... false equivalence," as if the relative popularity of the characters should direct our analysis of the characters. This answer is either "dumb" or disingenuous. You pick which one you want to be known for.

It's hilarious that you already assume as self-evident a "fact," such as "I wrote something misogynistic," when in fact that's one of the things in dispute. Gil clearly doesn't agree that it's misogynistic. I don't either. You don't get to claim victory before the question has been settled.

As for me, all I did was ask for EVIDENCE that Gil's comment was misogynistic. I then specified one type of evidence (that Gil makes wildly different comments about male Tilly analogues than he makes about Tilly) that might answer the question. It's not the only type of evidence you could present, but it's at least SOMETHING in your favor.

To date, you've presented jack squat to back up your baseless implication, other than he mentioned Tilly was chubby a few times. What you said is insulting and silly and it was indeed an accusation. How someone could believe that Gil's "manifesting misogyny" by just mentioning more than once that Tilly's chubby, while SIMULTANEOUSLY denying that mentioning a Wikipedia article on misogyny as a response to someone's post with a "have a nice day" snarky remark amounts to an accusation that Gil is indeed a misogynist, smacks of cognitive dissonance on an astronomical scale. His saying one word about a character is enough for you to indict him for spreading, excuse me, "manifesting" misogyny, but magically in your mind, you saying a whole paragraph isn't enough for you to be suspected of conducting a witch hunt for which you have presented precisely zero evidence of witchcraft.
Set Bookmark
Quincy
Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 1:43am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: New Eden

Maybe Jammer just doesn't want to review the episode.

In any case, it's ridiculous for Booming to accuse Gil of misogyny on the basis mentioning Tilly is chubby. Did you witness him watch a Seinfeld episode and congratulate George for being chubby? Without such evidence, you have no case. You don't even have an indication that he MIGHT be misogynistic.

And no, that's not a false equivalence. It's as close as a comparison can come without comparing identical twins. The character's popularity is irrelevant. By your logic, I can't compare Transformers to Gobots because the former was much more popular. Gil was right to indict you for moving the goal posts.

You should have evidence when you make claims like someone is a misogynist, or, rational people shouldn't take you seriously. Do you have evidence that Gil hates women? I mean, besides that monofilament thin indicator "chubby"?
Set Bookmark
Quincy
Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 12:30am (UTC -6)
Re: ORV S2: All the World Is Birthday Cake

@Fluffysheap

Is laser light actually hard to distinguish from star light? It seems like it would be completely different.
Set Bookmark
Quincy
Tue, Jan 29, 2019, 8:34pm (UTC -6)
Re: ORV S2: All the World Is Birthday Cake

@ Dave in MN: "An atheist makes their conclusion using verifiable data and evidence (or lack thereof) to draw their conclusion."

This is an example of a belief that YOU hold that you simply have no viable means of proving. Did you take a poll of every individual identifying as an atheist? Did you telepathically audit their thought processes at the origin of their atheistic views to ensure the usage of only rational ones? How would you know otherwise how someone became an atheist?

PERHAPS this statement is true for you, but there must be countless atheists that are atheists because they don't believe in anything, haven't been exposed to religious doctrines, haven't really given it much thought either way, or have made some irrational emotional or unconscious decision, perhaps one based in traumatic childhood experiences, that leads them to refuse to believe in any deities under any circumstances.

There are possibly atheists running around who don't even believe in "verifiable data or evidence." Every belief a person could possibly have could be the result of either rational or irrational thought processes. Our most persistent beliefs are often formed directly from emotional experiences, no logic or reason involved. To claim every atheist fits your mold is patently absurd.

Atheism is billed as simply an absence of belief in a deity. That says absolutely nothing at all about whether a person who holds this mindset came to it by way of rational thought processes. That's a myth that many atheists pretend is self-evident. Atheists can be as irrational as any theist. I've personally met people like that. They may have simply been forced to go to church as a child, instead of say the comic book store, like they wanted to and decided from then on they didn't like ANY religion or anything to do with religion. Bam. They're atheists.

@ Dave in MN: "All this, despite the fact that every person on Earth already knows what it's like to not exist (those billions of years before we were born)."

This is the silliest thing I've read on this site. NOBODY on earth, whether theist, atheist, agnostic, nihilist, solipsist, or anything else knows what it's like to not exist. That's not even humanly possibly. You only have knowledge of what you've learned or experienced. And there can't be any such experience or learning concerning non-existence. The sentence "I know what it's like to not exist" doesn't even have any rational meaning whatsoever.
Set Bookmark
Quincy
Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 10:48pm (UTC -6)
Re: ORV S2: All the World Is Birthday Cake

This episode was exceedingly stupid. I can't believe anyone gave it more than a star. And that only because zero stars isn't an option.

Most people above have covered many of the illogical misteps in this episode, so I won't go into most of them.

1) Why would you want to confine alien "jelliacs" on your planet? Wouldn't you want them gone completely? Why did no one propose total exile for ALL the Jelliacs? The Union will take all of them away from the planet and any future Jelliacs as well. How would they turn down such an offer?
2) The hardheaded aliens of the week were especially hardheaded this week.
3) The Orville premise is wearing thin. It was supposed to be a parody of Star Trek. However, they're half-assing the parody more than they're half-assing the Trek. It seems they have it bass ackwards; it should be the other way around.
4) Even if you're wrongfully convicted of a crime and are later exonerated, if you murder a bunch of guards trying to escape, I doubt your sentence will be commuted by the governor at any point. They killed at least 8 guards. All that is just swept under the rug? How about that reset button that Voyager took so much heat for?!
5) As someone pointed out, the ONLY thing these aliens were concerned about was the relative position of the stars. Position necessarily includes distance. The whole subterfuge at the end simply would not work. They'd be on that parallax problem instantaneously.
6) Again, as someone pointed out, they were ordered to stand down from any forceful rescue attempt, so as not to create a diplomatic incident. Screw that, they just decide to monkey with the entire religion of these people and pseudo Starfleet doesn't even bat an eyelash? Dafuq?!?
7) These people better become the new Krill when they get warp drive. They should be incredibly pissed at being deceived like that. And they should discover that deception sooner, rather than later.
8) Really don't like the new security officer. Not sure why they got rid of the original. They should've introduced a new species, not carbon copy a bootleg version of the old one.

I really hope the Orville does better next outing. This was so disappointing.
Set Bookmark
Quincy
Sun, Jan 27, 2019, 4:43pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: New Eden

I generally liked this episode as much as the first this season. We're off to a good start here. However, there are 3 things I really didn't like about this episode:

1) The dark matter fragment was just discarded like so much refuse. It was supposed to be a new energy source or method of running the spore drive and yet they let it go so easily. Basically, the alien signal told them where to find the dark matter to use to save the human abductees it also told them where to find. Is that it?!? I know Tilly still has a couple of samples, but she no longer has a crap ton of dark matter? Are two samples really all they need?

And does gravity really work that way? Or was some other force at work pulling those radioactive fragments out of reentry? Because they'd have to be towing the moon around to yank all that stuff back up that easily. And if the only way they can tow it around is to negate its mass somehow, like when Tilly took that sample, how would it still have it's gravitational mass to yank all those fragments, like that?

2) In what seemed like nanoseconds, Jacob went from, "I've always suspected Earth survived! Now that we have the truth we can all go home!" to "Just knowing my family's been right all this time is enough for me." Dafuq?!? He flip-flopped like your favorite flapjack. I fully expected him to say, "Take me with you, god damn it! Take me with you!"

3) Prime Directive? These were human abductees. Even though they were ostensibly abducted to save their lives, they're still human beings that the Federation would have an interest in. Wth does the prime directive have to do with it?
Set Bookmark
Quincy
Sat, Jan 6, 2018, 6:20pm (UTC -6)
Re: Interstellar

Wow. That was hard to read.

Didn't see any anti-natalist theme, but then I wasn't looking for anything as silly as that.

There's no evidence the humans in Interstellar ecocided anything. The Blight is never really addressed. That's just some eco nutjob assumption ripped from the anus. However, to be fair, one would certainly expect such a thing, coming out of Hollywood.

Mother Nature herself periodically murders 95% of everything that lives. The heifer is a serial killer, plain and simple. The only species with at least a minimal chance of making it off this world alive is mankind, period. Nothing else has the time, means, or inclination to do so. Our main duty is to ourselves and our posterity to become a long lived species, since we're the rarest and therefore most valuable thing she's ever produced. Only technology can accomplish that. It would be wonderful if we could save Mother Earth in the process. Technology is also the best possible path to do so.

The praise for Passengers' "bravery," side-by-side with the denouncement of Insterstellar's "moral irresponsibility" was good for a chuckle. Passengers is basically a missed opportunity with some serious morality issues of its own. We have a stalker, (cyber plus good old fashioned lurking) who essentially kidnaps a lady and then is rewarded by the lady with copious quantities of vaginal secretions for doing so. Not only that, she forgoes being made whole in favor of the creepiest case of Stockholm syndrome courtship since Jaycee Dugard.

Not that I really care. The movie was alright for what it was, somewhat entertaining for the actor/actress chemistry, visuals, and setting. However, it could've been a lot better, if they'd withheld the tidbit about him being responsible for waking her, until the bar scene. That would've added lots of tension and kept me far more interested for quite some time, assuming they were able to pull it off and keep me guessing.
Set Bookmark
Quincy
Sat, Dec 30, 2017, 7:12pm (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S7: Lineage

@Tyler
This is a reasonable response. Much better than the other one I got. However, I have to disagree. Seven goes from full blown Borg, fully determined to remain so, to full fledged individual, who bucks the captain every other show. Absolutely no one, and I mean no one on the show, had a character arc as deep as hers. Nobody else even comes close. Certainly not B'Elanna, who was often nothing more than an inappropriately hostile hamster on a treadmill. Her main character development was letting Tom knock her up. It never even made logical sense how a half Klingon struggled so mightily with what full blooded Worf handled much more readily. She should've been more like Worf's baby mama, confidently comfortable, while rejecting her Klingon heritage.

I repeat, all her issues about her Klingon heritage should've been taken care of in the Faces episode where she was split apart into Klingon and Human halves in the very first season. If they wanted to do an arc, she should've remained split up for the entire season. Anything else just pales in comparison. Who cares if you got bullied as a child, like every other child in Creation, when you've had your entire ass cleaved in two and was forced to work closely with your hated left @$$ cheek just to save your life? Lineage, Extreme Risk, Barge of the Dead, etc was just old tired garbage that got stuck in the recycling bin.

@Abc
Not really. Only thing we have in common is we both like good sci fi. Michael (if I'm thinking of the right commentator) seems to hate drama focused episodes and finds A.I.s having the same rights afforded to sapient beings completely unbelievable. Even though he has no evidence he himself is anything other than wetware, grown, rather than manufactured.

I have no problem with drama. I enjoy it very much when it's done well. I just don't like the sci fi genre being subordinated to it. In genre fiction the genre is the hero of the dish, to paraphrase Gordon Ramsey. Lineage was like cooking a dinner where the entree was one of those generic gas station frozen hamburgers , while the side dishes were McDonalds fries and coke. Not much of a hero either way, but still glaringly obvious who the supposed champion is.

Meanwhile, it's also glaringly obvious to me that TNG is the first Star Trek franchise to posit sapient holograms, not Voyager. Minuet and Moriarty immediately come to mind. Not to mention, that episode, Emergence, where a brand new sapient life form is created from the wealth of holodeck records, logs, and ship systems. They actually say this out loud in the episode.

"Picard argues that the formed intelligence did not only come from the ship's systems, but also from the crew's personal records, mission logs, etc. 'Now if our experiences with the Enterprise have been honorable, can't we trust that the sum of those experiences will be the same?'" - Memory Alpha

Clearly, the writers intend for the audience to regard the ship as a ecosystem complex enough to create emergent sapient lifeforms all on its own and the Doctor as a sapient being worthy of respect, like any such organism, regardless of anyone's problems with that concept. And even though they back track quite a bit for dramatic license, they generally err on the side of that being the case. I see no reason to indite Voyager for following in TNG's well tread footsteps.
Set Bookmark
Quincy
Sat, Dec 30, 2017, 5:41pm (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S5: Latent Image

@Martin
You ain't never lied. I had the exact same thought. In fact, I originally went looking for Latent Image after watching Ashes to Ashes, thinking they had to be the same Ensign, but when I watched it I was like dafuq? Why pull a random Ensign out of your anus, when you already have a perfectly good one available? It made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

@DLPB
I didn't even think of that. That would've been absolutely perfect, especially if the other twin blamed the doctor for choosing her. Damn this needed one rewrite to iron out the flaws in the story.

For instance, I was disappointed with the so-called crisis the doctor went through. I thought it was going to be something like The Swarm, were his program was actually degrading and they were about to lose him completely, when in fact all that happened was he through a fit. B'Elanna does that every Tuesday.
Set Bookmark
Quincy
Tue, Oct 17, 2017, 12:16am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: The Butcher's Knife Cares Not for the Lamb's Cry

Discovery is flawed to be sure, but I'm enjoying it so far. I'm as much a trek fan as anyone, but it's about time we deviated from the old formula. The production quality is quite good and I'm willing to give the show time to grow and cast to gel together. Lord knows every first season of every trek show sucked anus. It's a wonder I kept watching trek long enough to become a trek fan, but it sure as hell wasn't because of any first season.

I really wished they'd placed this show after Voyager in the ST timeline. They could've had the 1st season villains be species 8472 or even the Tamarians from TNG. The only way this won't be a glaring error is if they manage to execute some promising twist that warrants this story as far back as it is. I found myself thinking while watching this, is this actually the birth of the Mirror Universe? (especially with the last scene) Or Section 31 origin story?

People nitpick the oddest things. Inertial dampers are going to struggle with a rotating ring in the saucer section? These are the same inertial dampers that regularly deal with some of the absurd purely impulse (not warp) accelerations seen on the view screens of certain TOS episodes? They're already planning to rotate space stations to add artificial gravity in the real world. How the hell am I supposed to take such a criticism seriously?

Panspermia? I don't recall any such implication, but I could be wrong. The Discovery mushrooms seemed to me to be based on 2 real life things: 1) fungal root systems that give rise to incredibly large organisms, like a certain honey fungus measuring 2.4 miles across in Oregon's Blue Mountains, which is thought to be the largest living organism on Earth, and, 2) mushrooms that do remarkable things, such as hyper-accumulate lethal radioactive substances, like Cesium 137. Good catch Chrome. I couldn't remember that guys name for the life of me.

There's enough to criticize Discovery with all the flaws. I thought Landry could've grown into a good foil for Michael's character. However, they just summarily kill her off in such an incredibly stupid manner. It was ridiculous.

Also, the writers must have used one helluva shoehorn to ram the Doctor's and Engineer's relationship into the script. Other than the fact that they were both obviously gay, there was really nothing suggesting that they were together... especially in the final scene where they were actually together. Talk about lame star trek romances. It seemed to me they were originally implying Stamets had a very "close" relationship with his friend that got killed on the other star ship and then this shit comes out of left field.

That said, there's enough good here that I'll keep watching to see if the writers and cast can gel together to make this a good series.
Set Bookmark
Quincy
Sat, Sep 30, 2017, 11:52pm (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S6: Child's Play

This was a good episode. Seven's and Icheb's performances were what carried it throughout. The twist at the end was what really made the episode for me. 3 stars is about right.

@Nathan
Sat, Nov 12, 2011, 2:41am (UTC -5)
"Ahhh, so this is the episode where "transwarp conduit" goes from being something created by the ship to a piece of fixed infrastructure. Love that Voyager continuity."

Not sure why people keep saying this. TNG introduced the Transwarp conduit as a fixed corridor through which even a non-transwarp ship like Enterprise could travel in TNG: "Descent." This first aired in 1993 long before Voyager even premiered in 1995. The borg ship with the rogue Borgs led by Lore go through the conduit and Geordie studies the aperture and figures out how to open it up. This is the first I recall hearing about a Transwarp Conduit or Corridor.
Set Bookmark
Quincy
Mon, Sep 18, 2017, 8:52pm (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S2: The 37's

@Skrankler
The 37's weren't necessarily awoken at the same time. The rebellion might have begun when the handful we saw were still in stasis. The rebel descendants didn't even know they were alive. It's a good bet the rebels' didn't either. Their being from the 1930s makes this highly likely. I'm not even sure that the concept of "stasis" had been mentioned in science fiction outside of something like Sleeping Beauty back then. The tricoder said their life signs were minimal. It makes sense that primitive humans wouldn't know any better.

That said this episode was lame. Totally far fetched and contrived that Voyager runs into everything from earth out in the delta quadrant. They used that theme so often it was far worse than the shuttle craft crash cliche in my opinion.

1 *
Set Bookmark
Quincy
Mon, Sep 4, 2017, 8:51pm (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S7: Lineage

@Chris Harrison

It would be nice if you could read and understand plain English. Allow me to post what I actually stated: "This episode was Soap Opera AND VERY BAD SCI FI." For something to be "very bad X" it must first be X. Clearly, this directly contradicts your claim.

And the problem with your "analysis" of my analysis is you apparently didn't understand my analysis. Yes, Lineage ticked the sci fi box. No, it didn't effectively explore the far reaching ideas of genetic manipulation. Instead it wallowed in myopic self-pity, which B'lanna seems to do every time the subject of her Klingon heritage comes up. Amazing how Jammer notes on one 7 of 9 episode that "At the same time, Seven of Nine stories are getting a bit repetitive (doesn't she essentially learn the same lessons every time, unable to later apply them to similar situations?)" Magically, this insight doesn't apply to B'Elanna's Lineage.

If there was any doubt you had trouble with reading comprehension, your assertion about action-adventure reveals all. If you'd truly understood the part of my post about genres, you'd have readily come to the conclusion that if I were indeed "really complaining about" Star Trek being "not action-adventure" then I would've been elsewhere watching Stalone, or Schwarzenegger instead of here complaining. You know... because... that's where the action is... in the ACTION GENRE.

You posting that nonsense along with "(a genre Trek has only ever nominally belonged to)." in the same sentence necessarily means you never had even a "nominal" understanding of my post. Obviously, there's no way that an action genre, adrenalin junkie would ever have failed to notice this critical fact about TOS, TNG, DS9, STV, and Enterprise long enough to find Jammer's site and complain about it.

Besides, I've unequivocally stated elsewhere on this very website that those allergic to action and those who binge on it should all get a room together, in order to make each other miserable for all eternity. They're two sides of the same bad penny. Guess which side of that penny you've revealed yourself to be on? Happy nuptials!!! ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

"The rest of your comment is just incoherent rambling. Especially your half-formed rant about something to do with rape and sexual equality."

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Plain English, remember. If you need the plain English crib notes, just ask and I'm sure some helpful person will email them to you.
Next ►Page 1 of 3
▲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.