Is this nonsense still going on?
Star Trek: Axanar
- Thread starter Linnear
- Start date
- Status
Watching the entire series on Netflix. God I love that show."Bitch" always reminds me of a scene from Keeping up Appearances, where a dog owner comes up to Richard, who was just the minute before talking to his overbearing wife, and asks him: "Have you seen a bitch run past?"
His reaction to this is gold.
Understood, thanks.
I've always been of the opinion that the D7 and K'tinga were one and the same. IIRC, the first time we actually heard "D7" on screen, it was the K'tinga CG model which was used (in VOY: "Prophecy"), and the added detail in "Trials and Tribble-ations" and TOS-R make them indistinguishable to all but the most hardcore.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and there's ENT: "Unexpected" which gives us a D7/K'tinga in 2151, but I think it's fair to say PtA is pretending that never happened
I am fairly late to this party, so if this has already been stated elsewhere feel free to ignore. I am also annoyed with the insertion of post TMP designs in to pre TMP Trek. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Take a look at the Final Countdown... F14s against Zeros. Cool in that context, but existing side by side is wonky. That being said, I choose to accept it now as a byproduct of the Hurq subjugating the Klingons - a Bronze Age people - and the Klingons overthrowing them and keeping all their tech. The surface heavy detail ships are leftover Hurq ships. The smooth ships seen in TOS are the result of the Klingons capturing TOS era Fed ships and adapting their tech to designs they already know. The Klingons aren't particularly innovative as much as the are excellent at adapting what they have on hand. Anywho...
Lockwood was obviously wrong as we're still talking about it nearly fifty years later!
Yeah, that's why, at the age of what? Roughly 80? He's working on a Star Trek Fan Film... right... (See item (E) at http://startrekreviewed.blogspot.com/2009/06/210.html ... notice the first name listed? Don't believe me? Check the links!)
Very interesting!
It´s a joke that there still is a discussion about those three words...
And for Equinox... They have their - I think by now fifth or sixth try to raise money (on gofundme, search for equinox) - from several hundred thousand dollars its now down to 5000, and it doesn´t look like they are going to make it. But back to topic...
And for Equinox... They have their - I think by now fifth or sixth try to raise money (on gofundme, search for equinox) - from several hundred thousand dollars its now down to 5000, and it doesn´t look like they are going to make it. But back to topic...
The point is that justifying the use of slurs in a film because the fictional characters would use the most offensive language possible fails to hold water when applied to words people at large consider unspeakable, ergo, it's not that the characters would say it, it's that the filmmakers felt it was okay.
The reactions have been illuminating.
The reactions have been illuminating.
By that train of logic, anyone that makes any film with something morally reprehensible means it's an act of condoning the offending behavior on the filmmaker's part.
So a film that would be about decrying misogynistic tendencies would still be in the wrong because it depicts misogyny. I could go more extreme, but that would be silly and I would be silly.
Not worth bothering. Some people were simply born with a stick up their ass.
And Maurice, I'm not talking about you, but the usual suspects who'll use every chance to feel offended by anything that wouldn't fit into a ´50s Disney movie.
That is the most insane thing I've ever heard. That would imply that moviemakers showing rape in a story about a women being raped means they feel it's ok to rape.
One of the aspects of Axanar is showing the horrors of war. Part if that is insulting your enemy, degrading them. Just because the makers decided to show that part of it, doesn't mean they feel it's okay.
That's it. I wasn't going to participate in this discussion, and I'm not going to any further. But I really needed to get that of my chest....
While I get the gist of what you're saying, I'm going to point to an example:
"Song of the South" was a 1946 Disney film, and considered a bit controversial today. While it wouldn't be made today, I personally understand the historical side of it.
Furthermore, while I do understand the comments about filmmakers being harsh with language or depictions in order to make a point, there is another example of Quentin Tarantino who loves to have his black characters use the n-word. It is because he feels that black people in general (not some) use the word - according to his interview on Charlie Rose years ago - and that it is racist for him not to use it. So, he's basically using his skin privilege to utilize that word in his movies.
I really feel like you're way out in left field on this one, Maurice. But the world would be a pretty dull place if we all agreed on everything.
I'm not sure how illuminating the reactions have been. People have their opinions, and people have stated them. There is no complete agreement, and the proportions of opinions represented in-thread almost certainly don't reflect their respective proportions in the overall audience at large. Welcome to the Internet.
Last edited:
Jake Sisko's character in "Far Beyond the Stars" said it, but I don't know if that's the same thing you're talking about.
Anyways, I thought this prelude was ok. It has pretty good production values for a fan film and for the most part great acting. But for some reason I can't really get into a fictional history documentary. Will definitely watch the movie though.
I saw it as the Klingons were so threatened by a female they had to try to degrade her- Garth get's a title while she gets slur.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
