You can criticize it all you want. But, when it comes to humor there's going to be a huge mileage will vary a lot.
Indeed.
Spoilers Lower Decks General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter mdtauk
- Start date
I came down pretty hard on Star Trek Into Darkness. I bullet-pointed 15 things I found wrong with it. Link right here. At some point I'll give the film a second chance, where I'll try to have a more open mind. I keep meaning to re-watch the Abrams Trilogy and keep putting it off.
I also was openly doubting how they'd pull off wrapping up DSC's first season. Link to a page right here. They came up with a solution I didn't think of. If they'd gone with the only things I was thinking of, I would've thought they dropped the ball and would've said so.
Last edited:
Ehh.... I dunno.
In the 1950s women on TV shows were either housewives or secretaries. Hell, even it was considered big deal on TOS that Uhura (not just a woman but a black woman) was an equal to her male co-workers and wasn't treated as a lesser person because of her race or gender.
Today women on TV shows are pretty much anything (including captains of starships!) clearly an indication on the improvement of society and humanity as today we'd be pretty upset if a TV show's female characters were only secretaries and housewives (barring situations where the setting of the show was in a time or place where women were "only" those things like with Mad Men.)
Yeah, who's actually said anything along those lines?
No one here has said anything like that.
Pretty sure TV shows had little to do with the advancement of women in society. TV is usually a mirror of society and is rarely "out front" in social development.
Maybe I interpreted what he said differently, but that's how I interpreted it. That the TV was the reflection not the cause.
So you went Over the top? Shocking!
This is utterly false. If everyone loves these shows, I wouldn't have a chance to defend them or stand up for them. Why would I want people to not be critical? It would deprive me of making me have to think about the merits of what I'm watching. My goal isn't to get you to agree with me. If you've thought out your position and I've thought out mine, we should be able to debate with each other to the point of a stalemate. Yes, I did just paraphrase Spock from "Court Martial". But anyway...
If you don't like a show, I've said that you should stop watching it. But that's not the same thing as not being critical. You can like a show and still be critical of it. You can be "on the fence" about a show and still be critical of it. You can be "in the middle" and still be critical of it.
Anyway, if I go into the TNG or VOY or ENT Forum and start tearing those shows apart, I'd expect pushback. I'd be surprised if I didn't get it. I'd be thinking, "What's wrong? Why aren't you standing up for your series?" If you go into a series forum and post a negative opinion, you're going have a ton of people disagreeing with you because that's the way forums are by design. The majority of posters in a show's forum will like that show. And it's going to be even worse if you make it look like you think everything's wrong with it and they can't do anything right. That's just the way it is. Anywhere.
EDIT: Hell, I even encouraged a poster once to just own the fact that they don't like DSC and not to hide behind some forced rationale to justify it.
I could count on one hand the number of posters who I think are genuinely problematic. And it might not look like it sometimes, but I don't consider someone having a different opinion than mine as being "problematic". If I have an issue with someone, there's always more to it than meets the eye and something else is going on.
Last edited:
Exactly.
The use of whataboutery - or tu quoque - isn’t desirable and should be avoided when attempting to form a sound basis for a logical argument. However, that shouldn’t stop people from calling out the flaws inherent in opinions based off double standards and hypocrisy.
Personally speaking, I lose interest in a view if the standards somebody uses to judge it changes based on a clear agenda. It’s the same in politics. I’m not a big fan of hypocrisy in any setting, but if there’s a hidden agenda and two different criteria are used to judge the show/policy with the objective to create a different outcome, it’s a fairly worthless opinion to me, at least outside of objective facts.
TWO Trek virtual panels happening this week
https://trekmovie.com/2020/08/10/st...o-the-metaverse-for-virtual-panels-this-week/
https://trekmovie.com/2020/08/10/st...o-the-metaverse-for-virtual-panels-this-week/
I had a realization on why I suggest other Trek's and their use in such arguments. It's because that if it occurred in past Treks then, for good or for ill, it is fair game to writers now. Especially with the desire for Trek fans to run shows. They will be just as familiar with past episodes and will have their own favorites and storylines they want to explore, whether popular or unpopular.
All's fair in Trek and war.
That quote was already horrible with the original "love and war"...
I understand your line of reasoning when someone posts things like THIS IS NOT TREK or GENE'S VISION or THIS RUINED MY CHILDHOOD. But not when somebody simply doesn't like something - be it the humor or something else. If I don't like it, I don't give a damn whether they've already done it with Kirk or whomever. If thought the space flowers in Picard were stupid, I really wouldn't care whether TNG or TOS had even stuider stuff.
Maybe viewing debates like wars (what with "defending" shows, as another poster put it) is not ideal.
Fair enough. When it comes to humor if I don't find it funny I don't keep going back to the well to see if it suddenly turned interesting or funny to whatever. Nor do I find the need to keep going "That's not funny" like Geordi to Data. Largely because humor (and stupidity) are highly subjective. I mean, I love The Three Stooges but my mom and wife cannot stand it. I think that "8 Out of Ten Cats Does Countdown" is hilarious and my wife just rolls her eyes. So, I don't make them watch it while I watch it.
And my arguments are coming from statements like "This is out of place for Trek" or "Trek would never" or other such black and white statements. Star Trek is too big to a tent for such black and white. I think there was an episode about that...
Good thing I don't
Yeah, there are a couple of extremely repetitive posters... I think they'd best be ignored after a while, but that's easier said than done.
As for the humor, it's very subjective. For example, LDS didn't make me LOL, but it amused me.
As for the humor, it's very subjective. For example, LDS didn't make me LOL, but it amused me.
Reassuring to see I'm not the only one annoyed by Mariner SHOUTING ALL OF HER LINES.
Keith DeCandido of Tor:
“...starting with the very first scene: Ensign Mariner is the drunken crazy person who’s always loud and getting in everyone’s faces and not understanding personal space, a shtick that wears thin after about two seconds, and which the character returns to far too often. Plus the opening bit—which has nothing to do with the rest of the episode, by the way—goes on about thirty seconds too long... And not that funny, unless you find just the act of two people screaming after a brief pause to be hilarious. Which, to be fair, some people do... when Mariner is just tweaking Boimler and making fun of the senior officers and not being a loud obnoxious drunken moron, she’s way more effective. (It doesn’t help that Tawny Newsome feels the need to shout all her dialogue.)... The thing is, that backstory for Mariner means she should’ve turned into Chris Knight from Real Genius... Unfortunately, McMahan instead chose Bluto Blutarsky from Animal House as a role model, by way of Chris Farley and Vince Vaughn. It’s a poor fit."
Keith DeCandido of Tor:
“...starting with the very first scene: Ensign Mariner is the drunken crazy person who’s always loud and getting in everyone’s faces and not understanding personal space, a shtick that wears thin after about two seconds, and which the character returns to far too often. Plus the opening bit—which has nothing to do with the rest of the episode, by the way—goes on about thirty seconds too long... And not that funny, unless you find just the act of two people screaming after a brief pause to be hilarious. Which, to be fair, some people do... when Mariner is just tweaking Boimler and making fun of the senior officers and not being a loud obnoxious drunken moron, she’s way more effective. (It doesn’t help that Tawny Newsome feels the need to shout all her dialogue.)... The thing is, that backstory for Mariner means she should’ve turned into Chris Knight from Real Genius... Unfortunately, McMahan instead chose Bluto Blutarsky from Animal House as a role model, by way of Chris Farley and Vince Vaughn. It’s a poor fit."
I mean...OK. But I don't why her backstory automatically means she will turn out a particular way...
I get not liking the shouting dialog (different strokes) but her backstory automatically means she can't end up like she is? O_o I've weirder people come from completely inoffensive, polite, boring families.
I get not liking the shouting dialog (different strokes) but her backstory automatically means she can't end up like she is? O_o I've weirder people come from completely inoffensive, polite, boring families.
Lots of kids who grow up in those kinds of families end up rebelling, at least for a little while, against expectations.
Similar threads
- Poll
