Science is bad mckay.

@znexyish said:

when I first put this thread up I expected it to fade away quick.

...said the spider to the fly.

@znexyish said:

@Thespear
You must have some kind of tracking signal that lets you know about these anti picard-ites. At least Nex, Knixon, and Invidia post on all sorts of other subjects. I won't even ask how The Orville is racist and sexist, well just "ist. What else interests you besides this?

One supposes that all ends up well on Picard. I read that DSC is having another season or two. I think that the main difference is that the new trek shows stream and to much larger audiences and don't have to depend on single episodes or the older model to work. Picard has been described as a 10 hour movie so that again makes it a whole different animal then the old Trek. It's the difference between apples and oranges (or Gagh and Earl Grey Hot in Trek terms). Finally Rod isn't Gene. He just shares last name.

I have VERY many other interests besides swatting down these knats ...try me. However, I have made it a personal endeavor to challenge ROT whenever I see it and I don't have to go far just track Knixon and Nexus, they NEVER fail. But seriously, have you TRIED to read what these guys have written and are writing? Silence means acquiescence!

I think Kurtzman and Co are giving us the skeleton of ST but fleshed out a different way ( who wants to go over what has been done before). Picard is more cerebral, we deal more with feelings,emotions and motivation, DSC seeks to look at the phenomenon of ST from a different POV, that of a 1st officer and the interpersonal star ship relationships, NOT just focus on a captain. I think these are worthy endeavors. Both STILL present the notion of "mankind becoming better" which I agree is the most succinct summation of the POINT of ST. Serialization is undeniably the way of the future , no doubt. Yes, streaming includes a wider range of audience but it also allows for a different viewing experience that was not available before. I currently watch entire series of shows I had missed episode after episode even if it is 10 years old. It is a completely different viewing experience. I don't pay for cable, regardless of what is showing, I wait until Hulu gets it and watch the entire series at my leisure.

Btw, I wouldn't say I am that GREAT a fan of PIC or DSC....I just want to give the shows a chance and I DO GET UPSET when people use racist and sexist reasons to put down a show BECAUSE it is simply different. If you can't see how 'The Orville' is racist and Sexist, perhaps you are looking carefully enough! My opinion only!

Folks,

Knixon's entire reason for existing its to prove that Sexism and Racism are a figment of 'others' imagination. Despite living in a country that is generally more tolerant and progressive, Nexus finds comfort and CAMARADERIE in exchanging vile RACIST and SEXIST views, jokes etc online to reinforce his deep seated rejection of the tolerance in his own nation.

Don't take my word for it, I am just the paranoid person obsessed with "isms". Go ahead and look at what these people HAVE said, of their own free will when they did not think anyone was looking! Don't want to do that? Well then don't dismiss my concerns out of hand! These guys have NEVER defended their views or words when I bring them up. If you say "Spear" hates white males because he continually makes fun of them unnecessarily in disgusting ways....my GOD you will get three pages of denial from me IMMEDIATELY. Why? because it is NOT true and I CAN PROVE IT you can not. When I tell you Nexus AND Knixon were pillorying Michael Burnham and Michelle Yeoh in the most disparaging ways before the first 3 episodes of DSC, what do you hear them say in response?....S I L E N C E....nothing! It's not that they don't want to, IT'S because they CAN'T. They KNOW it's TRUE!!!!!!!

Tell you what Knix and Nex, do a Mea Culpa ? Admit that EVERYTHING I have alleged about you here is 100% true. I have NEVER lied or MISCONSTRUED your words. You do that, and I promise to stop going back and only take your comments FROM TODAY MOVING FORWARDS! I am NOT holding my breath

@Knixon said:

Of course it is! "Everyone knows" that nature is not Politically Correct.

You'd think that those who seem to worship nature might take note, but... nawww….

For that they have to get out of their safe space of the college campus.God forbid nature might make a mess of their designer hairdo or put dirt on their designer clothes.Or when they actually do go out into nature they ignore the possible dangers(because hey nature is good and humans are bad) and end up like that Grizzly guy.

-#MakeStarTrekGreatAgain

@Nexus71 said:

For that they have to get out of their safe space of the college campus.God forbid nature might make a mess of their designer hairdo or put dirt on their designer clothes.Or when they actually do go out into nature they ignore the possible dangers(because hey nature is good and humans are bad) and end up like that Grizzly guy.

-#MakeStarTrekGreatAgain

But when Trek steps away from a squeaky clean portrayal of the future, you don't like it.

I was comparing real life and the life those twitterado's with their overly PC whining think they are living in it wasn't about Star Trek.I don't need a reality check I can separate reality from fiction and I know the world is shitty place and that I can do very little to change it ,Sure I try but I know most of the times it is pointless.Star Trek is fiction and after a sometimes dark and dreary day it is good to know that there is some entertainment that encourages me not to give up hope on mankind.All I am simply asking is can we please have at least one franchise and SF show that is not dark dreary " realistic" drab.Sure other people love the dark and doom gloom stuff and fine by me there are plenty other dark and dystopian (SF)series out there and they are often far better at it(I can recommend The 100 that is pretty good) .Star Trek was always the franchise that was optimistic and hopefull about Humanity's future and was about solving conflicts, by using your wit not by brutal violence and murder.So Trek seemed the most likeliest candidate to pick up the mantle again for making a bright and hopefull SF show.And if that is not your thing there are dozens of other shows to choose from.And those that say there is no audience for an old school Trek show then why is The Orville getting a third season and managed to get a loyal bunch of viewers?(note I am not saying whether the quality is always good but I was talking about the atmosphere,message and tone it is managing to get across).

And miniskirts were actually a symbol of female empowerment in the sixties.But no things don't have to back you are exaggerating Invidia and I thought the Cheerleader outfit that Troi wore in a couple of early episodes was a bit ridiculous just like the man skirts in Encounter At Far point.Those regular Starfleet uniforms were fine after all these people are at work let's keep things professional shall we.And FYI bell bottom trousers and long greasy hair was the thing when I was a child I was fecking born and grew up in a feminist wave FFS.

Honestly I just miss a self contained episode not a long flowing arc

Maybe they should have gone for a fourth season of ENT like construction with self contained episodes and some three or four parter episode a bit of best of both Worlds(not the episodes)

Sorry Invidia I am not a fashionista I rarely make a point about outfits certainly if the story is engaging enough.And sexual liberation was one of the biggest things in the 60's and the miniskirt was a symbol of that you may think sex has nothing to do with feminism but the women and feminists of the 60's (and in my country the 70's as well )might think otherwise.Over here women made a big issue out of burning their bra's and having slogans like "boss of my own belly" (the right of abortion).According to my history lessons of women's liberation the feminists came in several waves and the late 60's /70's was one of them at least in The Netherlands (check out "De Dolle Mina's").

@Nexus71 said:

All I am simply asking is can we please have at least one franchise and SF show that is not dark dreary " realistic" drab.

https://v5.themoviedb.org/tv/75758-lost-in-space Not quite as anodyne as the original, but the Robinsons are all almost saintly.

Genre-adjacent: https://www.themoviedb.org/tv/81114-god-friended-me?language=en-US and tangental https://www.themoviedb.org/tv/61870-signed-sealed-delivered The latter seems to be on hiatus atm, though another movie is allegedly en route.

@mcse2000ca said:

Honestly I just miss a self contained episode not a long flowing arc

Lost in Space has a "problem of the week...

On the whole, the way people watch/what they enjoy and what they can cope with has changed and shows that are episodic are pretty rare.

@Invidia said:

The MINI SKIRTS were an ATTENTION SEEKING DEVICE (the same way as DYING ONE'S HAIR a BRIGHT RED FAKE LOOKING COLOR is the SAME THING). That's also why the FAKE RED HEAD GIRL in that ANTI PICARD video was also SHAKING her BOOBS at the CAMERA. Because she's an ATTENTION WHORE who is BASHING the show as a way to try to get others to PAY ATTENTION to her.

Only having the ACTRESSES wearing MINI SKIRTS on TOS was an ATTENTION SEEKING DEVICE or a way to get MALE VIEWERS to WATCH the show (the same way as having 7 of 9 WEARING that CORSET that made her have a FAKE LOOKING BARBIE DOLL BODY was also a way to try and get other MALE VIEWERS to watch VOYAGER).

So instead of a situation where the SEX is being LIBERTED by wearing a MINI SKIRT or the BARBIE DOLL CORSET, it's actually being EXPLOITED by having it's BODY OBJECTIFIED.

And whenever one SEX OBJECTIFIES the BODY of the other one, that's also NOT LIBERATION but EXPLOTATION.

I did think that about that girl, and wondered if she'd have as many viewers if she was completely unattractive and stopped with the jiggling.

I too struggle to grasp the "getting your boobs out is empowering thing". As a heterosexual guy, I see the trailers/stills for "Hustlers" and think "J-Lo looks hot! If I were a single man and she was interested..." not "That looks like a strong, independent woman". I can see that it is empowering in that it gets men to look, but it won't just be hunky men - like me, obvs - that look. Do they really feel empowered by pubescent boys jerking off to them? If it's empowering "just for the woman" will J-Lo still be letting it all hang out when she hits 80? Men seem to be more honest about their equivalent. I remember seeing a post-300 interview with Gerard Butler were he said that it had been a lot of work to get his "Spartan" body and he wasn't planning on keeping up the training, so he'd be taking off his shirt as much as possible whilst he still had the six pack.

BTW, I much preferred Jeri Ryan's more "lived in" Picard look to her Voyager one.

Okay now, there's a perfect example of some of you seeing a TV show or movie and thinking it's real.

Closer is a MOVIE. It was WRITTEN BY - MADE UP BY - someone(s) and DOES NOT REPRESENT REAL LIFE, OR REAL STRIPPERS, OR ANYTHING.

Now you're probably going to say you don't actually think it really represents the lives of real strippers. Then you do a piss-poor job of commenting about movies/TV if you give the impression that you believe it actually represents how real strippers live.

That's what STP needs more strippers.

You are way too prudish yes sex was seen as part of a liberation for women if you don't believe me check out the literature.The 60's was a period where women demanded their own sexual liberty which coincided with birth control devices becoming more readily available .The anti conception pill made a huge difference in the sexual life of women.Women could have sex with whom and when they wanted without the risk of pregnancy (and usually followed with the restrictions of marriage).It allowed them to have careers without the burden and risk of pregnancy and inevitable marriage while they could enjoy the same sexual freedom as men.The importance of the pill for women's liberation can not be stressed enough.And why is it so bad if a woman wants to flaunt with her sex appeal?If that is her own choice who are you to judge?Seems like you want to restrict women because women should behave like some Vestal virgins if they want to be taken seriously or regarded as equals to men.You seem to think that all men do is look at tits and asses and if a woman expresses her sexuality men will immediately objectify them or don't take them serious.While it is you who is behaving in such manner just because some female Youtuber shows off her ample bosom doesn't mean that her opinions have less merrit or that she might have some sensible things to say.