Monty Posted October 16, 2017 Author Share Posted October 16, 2017 8 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said: Can't tell if serious or not but you get an incredulous Paul Winfield for that. It’s a bad episode. Real bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrDrFunk Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Just now, Monty said: It’s a bad episode. Real bad. Forgive me if I consider the rest of your Star Trek opinions suspect from here on out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted October 16, 2017 Author Share Posted October 16, 2017 10 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said: Forgive me if I consider the rest of your Star Trek opinions suspect from here on out. That’s fine. Not all episodes of things are amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrDrFunk Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Monty said: That’s fine. Not all episodes of things are amazing. Of course not but calling Darmok the worst episode ever makes me question your opinions. Edited October 16, 2017 by HerrDrFunk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted October 16, 2017 Author Share Posted October 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said: Of course not but call Darmok the worst episode ever makes question your opinions. There are other real bad ones, as well. Horrifically bad. To me, though, even the real bad episodes fall into the “so bad it’s good”, because they are laughably horrendous (ie: Sub Rosa). While Sub Rosa might be the worst pen to paper to screen episode of TNG, the entire concept is insane in a “What the hell am I watching?” But it’s entertaining as hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrDrFunk Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 6 minutes ago, Monty said: There are other real bad ones, as well. Horrifically bad. To me, though, even the real bad episodes fall into the “so bad it’s good”, because they are laughably horrendous (ie: Sub Rosa). While Sub Rosa might be the worst pen to paper to screen episode of TNG, the entire concept is insane in a “What the hell am I watching?” But it’s entertaining as hell. I'm not saying there aren't bad episodes...but I don't think you're getting me at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted October 16, 2017 Author Share Posted October 16, 2017 5 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said: I'm not saying there aren't bad episodes...but I don't think you're getting me at all. I am. I just don’t like the episode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrDrFunk Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 1 hour ago, HerrDrFunk said: Obviously what works on a forty minute TV show doesn't work for a movie but Wrath of Khan was a direct sequel to a TOS episode and is pretty much universally agreed upon as being the high mark for Star Trek movies. You can't just say "it's a movie so it doesn't count". Hell, the original series had a Federation bigwig who decided "You know what would make this planet better? Nazis!" and he wasn't even the main villain by the end of it. Because of casting choices, "The Outcast" comes across less as Star Trek saying "it's okay to be gay!" and more like one woman's quest for **** in the face of lesbian tyranny. Isn't it a little telling that when Guinan is telling Soren about relationships between genders that they never mention that some people are attracted to the same gender? Or that there was supposed to be a gay couple in the background of that scene but they were cut because it was too controversial? That's the high water mark for Star Trek and gays? Damn.... Alright, let's agree to disagree there, @Monty. How about gays in Trek? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 1 hour ago, HerrDrFunk said: You think gay characters existing is the show trying to shock you with them? Yes beacuse of the way they presented it... if it had have been something that we got to witness from the start rather than us finding out about their relationship while they were sonically brushing their teeth with their spaceage teeth cleaning devices, I feel, at least for me, that it would have had much more meaning and would be a relationship that I would have been interested in watching how it progressed. Instead of starting us with maybe one of the doctor or lieutenant being interested in the other, they jump into a relationship that is already established and the only reason to jump to that rather than watching the beginning of the romance would be to try to shock the fans... just like the use of the fbombs and quasi graphic violence, which are both also not shocking in the least, especially if you watch HBO shows, but that is what I feel like the writers are trying and failing to do. The violence and language is something never before seen on Star Trek, even in the movies, so to have random fbombs being tossed around by the crew.... then with the starfleet pilot being mercilessly shanked... the violent beatings of the human prisoners by the Klingons... the atomizing of the Klingon hit with the disruptor into a fine bloody mist... the lady Klingon using the human as a sex slave and then getting her face half destroyed by the disruptor... all to end it off with BOOM these two main characters are in homosexual relationship could all only be for shock value in the hopes of gaining more interest in the show. Star Trek has always had a very clean image for the future... so many other space shows have had a much darker, dirtier view of future space travel. Did we ever hear Picard say "F*&(en Engage"? or Bones say "F*&k it Jim, I'm just a doctor" Or blood pouring out of someone they hit with a phaser? Never. No man it was done to try to shock the audience plain and simple. Compared to other shows it is tame but compare it to past Star Trek they have gone where no Star Trek series has gone before. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted October 16, 2017 Author Share Posted October 16, 2017 34 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said: Alright, let's agree to disagree there, @Monty. How about gays in Trek? I couldn’t care less. As long as they have great characters with a meaningful story, that’s all that matters. They don’t. The story and characters are awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrDrFunk Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 10 minutes ago, Aladeen said: Yes beacuse of the way they presented it... if it had have been something that we got to witness from the start rather than us finding out about their relationship while they were sonically brushing their teeth with their spaceage teeth cleaning devices, I feel, at least for me, that it would have had much more meaning and would be a relationship that I would have been interested in watching how it progressed. Instead of starting us with maybe one of the doctor or lieutenant being interested in the other, they jump into a relationship that is already established and the only reason to jump to that rather than watching the beginning of the romance would be to try to shock the fans... just like the use of the fbombs and quasi graphic violence, which are both also not shocking in the least, especially if you watch HBO shows, but that is what I feel like the writers are trying and failing to do. The violence and language is something never before seen on Star Trek, even in the movies, so to have random fbombs being tossed around by the crew.... then with the starfleet pilot being mercilessly shanked... the violent beatings of the human prisoners by the Klingons... the atomizing of the Klingon hit with the disruptor into a fine bloody mist... the lady Klingon using the human as a sex slave and then getting her face half destroyed by the disruptor... all to end it off with BOOM these two main characters are in homosexual relationship could all only be for shock value in the hopes of gaining more interest in the show. Star Trek has always had a very clean image for the future... so many other space shows have had a much darker, dirtier view of future space travel. Did we ever hear Picard say "F*&(en Engage"? or Bones say "F*&k it Jim, I'm just a doctor" Or blood pouring out of someone they hit with a phaser? Never. No man it was done to try to shock the audience plain and simple. Compared to other shows it is tame but compare it to past Star Trek they have gone where no Star Trek series has gone before. I thought it was pretty clear they were involved in some way from their interactions earlier in the episode and didn't feel like I need to see every step of their relationship. Of course, if you think gay = shock value, I don't know what to tell you. As far as the violence goes, we're just finally getting to see what should happen to people in these situations. People have been getting disintegrated since the original series, Klingons have been known to treat their prisoners like **** since their first appearance in TOS, bat'leth's have been a thing since TNG, etc. It's just now that they can actually show that the end results of that. There have been plenty of references to people bleeding out because of phaser wounds, they just couldn't show the blood because of network standards in the 90s. If you're seriously asking me why the didn't say f*** on a network TV show from the 60s...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrDrFunk Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Monty said: I couldn’t care less. As long as they have great characters with a meaningful story, that’s all that matters. They don’t. The story and characters are awful. Not a fan of the ethics of science in a time of war? Also, I was curious as to your thoughts on The Outcast considering there weren't any gays in it and the episode went out of it's way to pretend they didn't exist. Edited October 16, 2017 by HerrDrFunk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted October 16, 2017 Author Share Posted October 16, 2017 3 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said: Not a fan of the ethics of science in a time of war? Not a fan of Star Trek going the way of: 1. No character development 2. Season long story archs 3. Terrible writing 4. Relying on same timeline as old stuff (lazy). “Remember Sarec? Remember Spock?” 5 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said: Also, I was curious as to your thoughts on The Outcast considering there weren't any gays in it and the episode went out of it's way to pretend they didn't exist. Certainly in hindsight they could have pushed further, considering that Star Trek was no stranger to pushing the envelope. They touched on things that ultimately fell short, but I don’t know the pressures of pushing issues in media now, let alone the early 90s. I think it’s a good episode, but not without its flaws. It’s no “The Inner Light”, which is the best Star Trek episode. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 7 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said: I thought it was pretty clear they were involved in some way from their interactions earlier in the episode and didn't feel like I need to see every step of their relationship. Of course, if you think gay = shock value, I don't know what to tell you. As far as the violence goes, we're just finally getting to see what should happen to people in these situations. People have been getting disintegrated since the original series, Klingons have been known to treat their prisoners like **** since their first appearance in TOS, bat'leth's have been a thing since TNG, etc. It's just now that they can actually show that the end results of that. There have been plenty of references to people bleeding out because of phaser wounds, they just couldn't show the blood because of network standards in the 90s. If you're seriously asking me why the didn't say f*** on a network TV show from the 60s...... Dude you are trying to see something in my statements that just aren't there. I already said that gay doesn't shock me and it's not shocking... that's how they presented it... I'm sorry but if the story's characters continue to be 1 dimensional, the relationships lacking any sort of interesting story behind them, the plot of the show keeps heading down a path of who really cares because we all know what happens because of the first series, and they keep trying to force things to seem "up to date" (an example would be "all the great visionaries of the past like Zefram Cochrane and Elon Musk") this show will be cancelled after this season.... and if I am not mistaken it was already dropped from the CBS network and its only being aired on their streaming service and space. I guess that's what gave them the ability to sneak in some fbombs though so that's a win right? Shocking! Disintegrated and bloody mist are two very different things. They would always just fall into a pile of ash or disappear completely. Also I'm not asking you anything my questions were rhetorical. If you like the show fine, but if you can't see in any way how some people could have issues with the way they have written the show up to this point I really don't know what else to say to you. I hope it gets better, I do, I would love nothing more than a great Star Trek series to last 10+ Years of quality shows with characters who I care what happens to. I haven't seen that in this show yet. Like I said I am willing to give it a few more episodes and I really want to like the show.... great Ship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Kneel Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 A lot of the gay scenes lately seem gratuitous or forced into scripts.Like some sort of demographic fill in part of the storyline. My mind goes on pause during those scenes, or I go make a sandwich or check my phone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrDrFunk Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 11 minutes ago, Aladeen said: Dude you are trying to see something in my statements that just aren't there. I already said that gay doesn't shock me and it's not shocking... that's how they presented it... I'm sorry but if the story's characters continue to be 1 dimensional, the relationships lacking any sort of interesting story behind them, the plot of the show keeps heading down a path of who really cares because we all know what happens because of the first series, and they keep trying to force things to seem "up to date" (an example would be "all the great visionaries of the past like Zefram Cochrane and Elon Musk") this show will be cancelled after this season.... and if I am not mistaken it was already dropped from the CBS network and its only being aired on their streaming service and space. I guess that's what gave them the ability to sneak in some fbombs though so that's a win right? Shocking! Disintegrated and bloody mist are two very different things. They would always just fall into a pile of ash or disappear completely. Also I'm not asking you anything my questions were rhetorical. If you like the show fine, but if you can't see in any way how some people could have issues with the way they have written the show up to this point I really don't know what else to say to you. I hope it gets better, I do, I would love nothing more than a great Star Trek series to last 10+ Years of quality shows with characters who I care what happens to. I haven't seen that in this show yet. Like I said I am willing to give it a few more episodes and I really want to like the show.... great Ship. I understand you perfectly clearly but I totally disagree. The gay couple wasn't the shock moment. The shock moment was when Stamets' reflection sticks around after he leaves the room. The show hasn't been dropped by CBS. The plan from day one was to premier the first episode on TV and then run the rest on CBS' streaming service. While I certainly don't agree with that decision, trying to say that shows CBS has given up on the show is just flat out wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 Mindhunter: 9.5/10 I do a version of this in my own career and much of what is done/talked about is quite accurate. Far different from the Criminal Minds/CSI-type shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AV's Coin Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 (edited) On 10/16/2017 at 5:28 PM, Down by the River said: Mindhunter: 9.5/10 I do a version of this in my own career and much of what is done/talked about is quite accurate. Far different from the Criminal Minds/CSI-type shows. Mindhunter (Netflix) was great. 8.5/10. Kind of a slow burn. Lots of dialogue and no action or gore (well maybe the first scene). Only hints of it. The chilling parts are in the interviews. Made me want to read some of the books it is based on. Suburra (Netflix) was good as well. 8/10 Going to watch Fargo (Netflix) next. Edited October 18, 2017 by AV's Coin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Arrogant Worms Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 The Good Doctor......unless you know or have a family member with autism you may not get the show. Real Rob (Season 2) on Netflix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted October 18, 2017 Author Share Posted October 18, 2017 On 2017-10-16 at 7:28 PM, Down by the River said: Mindhunter: 9.5/10 I do a version of this in my own career and much of what is done/talked about is quite accurate. Far different from the Criminal Minds/CSI-type shows. Until you mentioned it, wasn’t even aware this was a show in development or out. After your review and then seeing that Fincher produced and directs majority of the episodes, I’m getting right on this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now