I don't agree. He wasn't the best, certainly, but I liked him more than, say, Dalton.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
At least the Star Trek episodes only make you suffer for half as long as the movie...
I agree that Craig is a thug... but he is supposed to be a thug. He's a thug hired to do dirty jobs.
I didn't like Craig's portrayal of Bond, either. He was too lowbrow and thuggish to be James Bond.
I think he did get better over time, but that's because the movies themselves were very good... SKYFALL and SPECTRE.
I still rank him as the worst Bond. Connery was the best, with Brosnan being a close second.
The adventures of James Bond, who never joined Starfleet, can be discussed on another thread.
Cheers
Cheers
The pile of rocks we see was about the same as D'Amato from THAT WHICH SURVIVES. But even if you're not a Kirk fan, this seems vastly insufficient.
It might be TOS fans felt it unfair that Kirk's closest friends would mostly never know how he actually died. (Or would later die after some of them had.)
The original Kirk-death was more dramatic, but Malcolm McDowell gave it away on live TV. So we get the rickety bridge plunge.
To be fair, Picard didn't have any digging tools or a phaser to dig a grave. Plus, this was on basically a mountain with no obvious soil nearby to bury Kirk.
Like the situation in "THAT WHICH SURVIVES", rocks were the only viable option available to Picard at that time.
I'm mixed on this. On the one hand, I'm all for liking what you like and ignoring what you don't. But, at the same time, declaring something nonexistent in the story feels s bit of a bridge too far in terms of engagement plus making conversation more difficult.
I hear you. I’d say there’s a difference between liking what you like, and pretending that affects the source itself. For example, in recent X-Men comics, I’ve absolutely hated the end of the Krakoa era and the return to the old unending status quo of “mutants fighting to protect a world that really, really, REALLY hates and fears them, while being constantly persecuted by said world” — to the point that, sure, I kinda have a headcanoned alternate universe where Krakoa not only stands, but leaves the stupid homo sapiens behind forever. BUT: In any discussion of the actual comics, it would be utterly pointless for me to throw in “Well, as far as I’m concerned that didn’t happen.” Because in the actual work, it did, and that’s that.
there was a guy many years, on AOL I think, who was constantly arguing with John Byrne about his Wonder Woman run. As it turned out what Byrne was doing was violating this guy's headcanon.
Unsurprisingly, I 've seen this guy's name pop up as an online "journalist".
I'm very careful about that; I see headcanon like the interpretations of QM: it doesn't contradict anything directly shown but interprets what is shown. I'm happy to contradict what the showrunners say, though, as long as it isn't shown on screen (that's not canon!).
Who was she saving, though? Sheridan. Who wad Sheridan? A person she loved dearly. A character the fans were heavily invested in. Sheridan was well known and beloved.
Now, change Sheridan to a different character, a character nobody knows. A character never seen before, during, nor since. A character never on screen and never heard of before that moment. Does Delenn still willingly sacrifice for this completely unknown individual? As a fan, do you care? Is that a dramatic moment that tugs at the viewers heartstrings? No.
Now, it should. It still is heroic. It's still the ultimate sacrifice. But we're talking dramatic entertainment, not real life. It's not a compelling, heroic story. As pointed out above, viewers mourned the loss of lives on those planets Nomad sterilized, nor the crew of the Constellation. Fans aren't crying when a nameless redshirt fails to return from a mission.
Drama and heroism in fiction comes from connecting with the audience. Threaten to destroy Earth I actually destroy Vulcan and fans are involved because we feel we have skin in the game.
Yes it is. If you love the portrayal it is at best cheap to go why not recast so we can milk that for some more appearances by different people.
A performance feeling timeless despite actually being 40, 50 years old is great accomplishment, a company wanting to do something new that is rehashy or pretty INO 50 or 60 years later feels at least pretty sad.
Rarely is, at least or especially for people who loved one version, a successor also embraced and James Bond is a very good example, very rare for people who love Connery or Dalton to not declare that Moore was a freaking CLOWN, for those who claim that Craig saved the series to not claim Brosnan was an embarrassment (although there at least they do usually blame the writers a lot more).
Pretty weird, bad decision that still seems most likely motivated by Nimoy's dislike of the character.
Similar threads
- Locked
