I thought she was much better as Troi's mother, especially in "Half a Life". She was very good in that. In TOS, she was pretty bland.
Ten-forward's bartender?in the future a black lady will be working alongside with white men
Did the original script have the character of Ripley cower behind Captain Dallas when the dead alien facegrabber fell from the ceiling, and would the movie have still include the croach shot when Ripley was getting into the spacesuit?Sigourney Weaver got the role and it worked because nothing about the role itself demanded that a man play the part
Did the original script have the character of Ripley cower behind Captain Dallas when the dead alien facegrabber fell from the ceiling, and would the movie have still include the croach shot when Ripley was getting into the spacesuit?
Did the original script have the character of Ripley cower behind Captain Dallas when the dead alien facegrabber fell from the ceiling, and would the movie have still include the croach shot when Ripley was getting into the spacesuit?
Like you've never imagined a Xenomoroph in a pair of bikini briefs.Be glad it was Sigourney and not the Xenomorph.
So you were the one who commissioned that artwork from my DeviantArt page.Fishnets, but not bikini briefs.
I don't think an avatar has ever been more appropriate for a post.I have specific tastes.
VERY specific.
I assume you're white and straight because representation matters and usually the people saying it shouldn't matter are the ones who get represented literally everywhere, they don't realize the importance because they've never lived without it.
You assume correct but we’re not living in 1960 anymore, there’s representation where ever you look, if you look for it. There’s been ‘Black’ Lead roles since the 80s, there’s been gay on screen relationships since the 90s but yet people still feel the need to ‘look’ for these things.
You would wrongly assume that because I’m a white straight man that I’d imediately dislike Dr Culber, the opposite is in fact true, his character is/was compelling and I was gutted to see him go. I also like Staments, but I shouldn’t, right? Because I’m not gay?
I see everyone as equal and whether I’m both white and straight doesn’t mean I don’t ‘relate’ to non white straight characters/people. I think people try to look for issues where there are none.
Many shows I saw growing up had all black casts. This was during the 90s. We’ve come a long way since then. It’s normal to me to see other races AND women in lead roles but it all seems so new to everyone today.
Yes it’s fantastic that there are more opporunities for actors and actresses from all different backgrounds to get their chance but liking them just for the colour of their skin shouldn’t be a thing, it kind of destroys all of their hard work as an actor.
In the 60s you can understand why Whoopi Goldberg’s parents made her watch TOS, it was LITERALLY the only example of a Black Woman on TV. The same cannot be said today.
Now if you’re talking off screen, I totally agree, when it comes to Governents being 95% white men. That’s where the issue lies. The rule makers, the judges, the people of power are majority white, we can only change that by voting yet thousands and thousands of people each year don’t bother to go to the polling stations.
Considering the number of times the importance of representation and privledge has been explained in this thread, I really don't have much hope that you'll ever get it, so I won't bother repeating it.I didn't have those role models as a kid. If somebody was a certain way, I imagined it - assuming I cared about their personal lives in that way. I have my own morals, which too many in the LGBT community say are "antiquated" or "unevolved". This is already borderline political, but stop making assumptions of what one needs to see on TV. I've always gone by character and story. I don't need Dave Lister or Cat to be white to appreciate them,
Culp got top billing in "I Spy" because he was the show's lead character. Culp's character was the main protagonist in most of the stories particularly season one. The reason it became less obvious in later seasons, (though Culp continued to be the show's lead, technically), was because of the sheer force of Cosby's talent and likability, and the massive chemistry between him and Culp. The producers managed to focus a part of each episode on that chemistry, giving the illusion of equality between the two actors. However, had Cosby not been "Cosby", the "Scotty" character would likely have continued to be what he was always meant to be; Kelly's black sidekick."I Spy" (1965) has Bill Cosby as one of two leads, in a spy genre show that has some humor but the drama is given the importance. It's an excellent show, especially as it was far more forward thinking in terms of actual equality. That's long before the 80s, for which I might not be the first to assume you're referring to the 1980s show "The Cosby Show" as well. I agree that, even alphabetically speaking, he should have had his name before Robert Culp's and I would say that was due to racism since, in watching the show, Robert Culp's character isn't any more of a "lead" than Cosby's is. America WAS far more racist back then and yet the show does far more than most 20xx fare regarding showing people equally without bias regardless of skin color or gender. It is worth checking out.
Good Times and The Jeffersons (Sanford and Son Chico and The Man etc) coincided with the blaxploitation era in cinema. People eventually stopped going to see those movies, black people included, because of the low level of the quality of those movies. Producers incorrectly concluded that the public no longer wanted to see movies fronted by black people. The real reason was because those movies were crap. But the result was movies with predominantly back casts virtually disappeared for several years. Same thing happened on TV."Good Times" had John Amos and Esther Rolle being two black leads and that was in the early 1970s. Look up what they had to say about the show and what they wanted to bring to it. I respect what they had to say far more than any of my own opinions.
I'll try to explain this as simply as possible. Lets say you have a family member who everyone in the family calls "fathead". Well, when Fathead gets into a fight with a family member, it's never over being called "fathead" because he knows that the family members have no malicious intent when they call him that name. However, some members of Fathead's family are offended by people outside of the family calling him Fathead. The main reason is because the family is not certain of the "intent" of those outside the family. This is an oversimplification but still the basics of the issue. BTW, I think your "identical context" comment is self-servingly delusional.Granted, "Good Times" and other shows in the 1970s had blacks calling black politicians and others various terms that non-blacks aren't allowed to say under the identical context (which also becomes racist if one race can say it but no others can... want it equal? Then make it the same for everybody and get on with life. )
The script says the smallest pair of panties the character can wear without cutting off circulation. At least in the second draft, after an emergency room visit they realized it was a bad idea.
Considering the number of times the importance of representation and privledge has been explained in this thread, I really don't have much hope that you'll ever get it, so I won't bother repeating it.
OUTRAGEOUS!What I do funny is that both TND Bond girls have now been in Star Trek.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.