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: 917 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 37
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
Mon, Jun 24, 2019, 7:20pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: The Road Not Taken

Surely the fact that Orville and Wilbur Wright were the first people to fly in a powered aircraft means their names should be at least as familiar as that if Neil Armstrong, first man on the moon.
Set Bookmark
Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 10:58am (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S2: I, Mudd

Well, this one definitely worked better when I was 6.
Harcourt really doesn't do all that much to earn his reputation as Star Trek's Hilarious Clown that the series wants him to be. And I don't necessarily blame the actor for that. Norman, on the other hand, was pretty well acted, a solid robo-antagonist given the material.

The two sisters who play the Alices are actually credited as 'Alice #1 through 250' and 'Alice #251 through 500', respectively. That was the biggest chuckle I got out of the episode this time around.
Set Bookmark
Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 8:30am (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S2: The Apple

*un*professionalism, obviously. Sorry.
Set Bookmark
Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 8:28am (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S2: The Apple

Ok I liked the adventure elements. I did not care for the sex talk, which is made uncomfortable and unnecessarily stretched out at the same time.

What really bothers me is the blatant professionalism of just about everyone. Why are they constantly insisting this is "paradise", just because a planet *has plant life*? In The Enemy Within, they have a tent set up and collect samples and make it look like they're doing actual field work.

The final straw is an exchange between Kirk and Scotty near the beginning, where Kirk is like "Dude, redshirt just died" and Scotty goes "Oh no, what a shame" and then moments later he goes on about how much he would love to stroll around down there himself. Then Kirk says something along the lines of "Ok gotta be real careful from here on out", then immediately proceeds to pick a flower and mindlessly smell it. It's like the actors and director didn't even care anymore at this point. :D
Set Bookmark
Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 7:53am (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S2: Who Mourns for Adonais?

@ Peter,

well I guess we can give the script credit for at least *giving* her a profession, as opposed to just being a tricorder stand or Apollo demanding a female specimen (which is how many other episodes handle it). I think at one time she's even asked a question relevant to her job, although many more lines about the historical/mythological background could just have been given to her instead of Kirk/Spock.

As for the dialog on the bridge, yes it's cringy and undoubtedly sexist, even for the time. Though I will say Kirk's line about losing an officer is very nicely delivered, as if he's coming to his senses while he hears himself talk.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 6:15am (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S2: Who Mourns for Adonais?

Here we got a contender for the Laziest Exposition Ever, when upon arrival, the woman just literally asks "so what am I doing here?", and McCoy helpfully explains her profession. To her.
Set Bookmark
Fri, Jun 7, 2019, 6:39am (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S2: Catspaw

I *also* have a soft spot for this one. The Three Witches are another iconic TOS image from my childhood. Watching as an adult, I expected nothing more than a novelty Halloween episode, but this is actually a legit TOS adventure. It has a lot of great lines, which mostly come from Kirk-Spock-McCoy interaction, because for the most part it's the three of them working together by themselves. Is this actually the first time we see just the trio beam down and get to work on a planet? Anyway the image made me smile. You see them materialize and you just know it's *on*. It's TOS time. Things are gettin' *explored*.

The aliens probing for our conscious minds and accidentally reaching the subconscious, as Spock explains, is really a nice SciFi thought. The 'universal images' that are supposed to reside there are a pop culture version of Jungian psychology, which was rather popular back then.

Also, pipe cleaner aliens.
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..."
Set Bookmark
Fri, May 17, 2019, 2:03am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2


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
Thu, May 16, 2019, 8:20am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S2: The Child


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.
Next ►Page 1 of 37
▲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.