MovieChat Forums > Costumer > Replies
Costumer's Replies
Because his father's name wasn't Henry, it was Edsel. So the grandfather was Henry Ford I and he was Henry Ford II. One of his sons was Edsel Ford II.
You know, I'm a conservative guy. I hate the use of the word 'Alien' I far prefer, in a series such as this, species.
My (and others) disagreement with you is not toxic. We have logical, in-world reasons for our criticism. I want new Star Trek series to succeed. I enjoy the universe and there is a lot of potential for stories in it. But if its set in that universe, I want it to logically connect to what has gone before. As I said above, if the creators had said this was a different, parallel universe I wouldn't have a issue with any of it. Its the insistence that this is the same universe as Archer, Kirk, Picard, Sisco and Janeway that spoils our enjoyment.
As for people my age having issues with holograms; I hate to tell you that the concept of holograms dates from before my birth. The earliest I can think of off the top of my head (and there are likely earlier ones) are the battle tanks that Port Admiral Haynes use in the Lensman series.
Whether you think that holograms are only logical and expected from a series is only your conjecture. The in universe fact is that the Enterprise of Kirk does not use them, Enterprise D doesn't, DS9 doesn't nor does Voyager. And, actually, screens could make more sense. They take up less room. A flat screen against a wall or at the back of a desk as opposed to some type of emitter on the floor or ceiling; the projected images taking up all the space of a human (in the case of the main screens, such as the bridge) or on the work surface where nothing else can be put? More logical to me. Your opinion may be different and that is fine.
And just for information, Enterprise begins about 140 years from now. And the Original series begins about 250 years from now.
After all this, my main argument with you is that you dismiss the criticism that many of have is that we are too old (you say AGE) and that our vision is limited. That demonstrates to me arrogance and condescension. You are perfectly free to see things differently than I do. Your opinion is just as good as mine. Neither is right or wrong. But you should be able to argue your point without the ad hominem attitude.
continues below
Ok, first I used STD because that is the easiest acronym. Yes, we say TNG, DS9, ENT. But by that standard we would say D. That your mind went to a suggestive interpretation is your problem.
I did not begin with an assumption I would not like it. I started with an interest in that period.
You say that the look is only a different interpretation How you equate 3 dimensional holographic projects with a flat viewscreen as different interpretations of the same thing is astonishing.
Obviously the spoor drive is not the answer to transportation. No other ship in any series use it. It was a deus ex machina, pure and simple.
Cont. below
You said "The first is AGE. Many core ST fans are in their 40s and 50s now. They can't even properly set up their phones, how can you expect them to ' get,' DSC? These people barely have A FB account don't do tweeter or Instagram. They are waving bye bye to a train that has left them at the station!" How else would you interpret it. I am OLD. I can't set my PHONE. How can I "Get" STD?
The Klingons have been remarkably consistent through Next Generation, Deep Space 9, Voyager and Enterprise, as well as the films. The only reason the original series were so different was due to budget reasons. Makeup and effects have advanced enough, and come down in cost enough (or budgets were increased enough) to make the new look possible. The new Klingons are, at best, clumsy. I could accept them as different racial groups within the Klingon species if we saw some of the familiar looks. It would be more acceptable if there were two or three different looks.
As for the ships, yes, they should be consistent. In this respect, they largely are. I have no argument with the physical look of the Discovery or any of the other federation ships.
Most spiders die after laying eggs. The fly would have upped her energy a bit, but it would not have extended her life.
The spore drive was also jarring. It was, first, a deus ex machina. They can go anywhere in an instant. The other series played fast and loose with speed and travel, but this was ridiculous. It removes all tension in responding to messages and alerts.
The explanation for abandoning the tardigrade was at least consistent with the tone of the overall universe, which is one of optimism. But continuing with Staments was arbitrary at best.
There are positives. Saru, in my opinion, is a great character, rich and complex. That is gratifying since the initial trailers used the rather silly "I can sense death" thing. The glimpses of other officers was also great. We saw several species very different from what we have seen before. But until the second season we knew nothing about them. And one of them, SPOILERS ............
Airiam dies, depriving us of what could be a very rich and interesting arc.
Are there fanboys who are having knee-jerk reactions to STD? Yes, there are. But don't dare to claim that many who have issues with it are feeble, ancient and stupid.
My, how arrogant and condescending of you. Its just our poor, feeble old minds that cause us to rail against STD. And we pull some idiotic concept such as Canon to buttress our claims.
No, sorry. Most of us do fine on our phones and many have a Facebook account (neither of which indicates anything about one's imagination, technical capability, or discernment.)
Canon in any fictional universe is the foundation of that universe. It defines the limits of the world and the frontiers to be explored. As I mentioned above, canon doesn't have to be absolute, just consistent. In Star Trek, how Humans, Klingons, Vulcans and other species look at their world should differ and add to the richness of the world.
However the physics of the universe and the events therein should be consistent. (that doesn't mean that people, whatever the species, won't interpret the same set of facts differently.)
Things have changed in Star Trek, of course. The physical makeup of the Klingons is the most obvious. Most of us accepted it as an expansion of the abilities of the show creators. Eventually, an explanation was developed "in-universe."
Discovery suffers because it is not paying attention to the world established by the other series. The Klingons have been radically changed without explanation or reason. Differing physical characteristics could be accepted if we saw some of what we are used to from four other series (excluding TOS here since those versions of Klingons, while the originals, haven't appeared in any of the other four)
Technology seems far too advanced given Enterprise and TOS. Using full blown holograms for intership and from planet-bound sources is far in advance of what the other series show. Even TNG and the other in the future of TOS don't use them. The explanation that the Enterprise had some sort of inherent incompatibility just doesn't hold water since no other ship or base uses them either in TOS and beyond.
Continued below.
Except the President has authority to see anything, regardless of its classification. I can see withholding the information prior to the alien's arrival. Plausible deniability is a reasonable position for deeply held secrets. But the moment it was clear that aliens had arrived he should have briefed the president. It may or may not have made any difference. But he should have told the president regardless.
It depends on how you think about it. The convention was an attempt to suppress pejorative terms. It was expanded to cover almost every ethnic ancestry. But it doesn't always work.
It has, in my view, led to more divisions among people than not.
My grandparents were from Italy. They worked hard to become American citizens. If you had called them Italian-Americans you would have gotten a fist in your nose. They were Americans. They came from Italy. They practiced many Italian customs. They were proud of their heritage, but they were Americans first.
There is no good answer to the problem of people using words to hurt other people. Any term developed to get away from a pejorative term often becomes pejorative in time.
Unless the contract says she could not interrupt, it doesn't matter. Ariel's task was to get Eric to kiss her. If she couldn't manage that, then she pays the price. I don't say it was fair. It wasn't fair. But, as I said, there is nothing that says a contract has to be fair.
Of course its legit. That was the point. The contract only says Ariel must convince Eric to give her a kiss of true love. It obviously (though I grant you we never see the exact wording) that Ursula can't interfere. One of the standards of both diabolical and fairy contracts is that the wording is precise. The devil, or the fairy, MUST comply with the terms of the contract. Therefore these contractors are very careful to eliminate all possible loopholes. Which leaves the poor signer the task of figuring out a way around it.
Don't forget, a contract does not have to be fair. If you sign a contract with someone that is unfair to you, you don't have any recourse; unless the contractor lies to you in some way.
A mark of good fantastic fiction is to assume the world is not changed unless it is specifically stated otherwise. So, yes, Terminators are fantastic things and don't exist in 2004 unless they come from the future. But unless the films establishes that the cars have remote control capability, or the terminator is shown establishing some type of control mechanism (nano bots or whatever) then they should not be able to be remote controlled. It is one of the flaws of this film.
I would say it is simply the common phenomenon of people shortening and simplifying words and expressions.
Frankenstein's Monster is a bit long. People are likely to shorten it. Removing Frankenstein makes it non-specific. There are lot's of monsters. (Though in the films it is fairly common for some villager or other to exclaim "It's the monster!)
Frakenstein is more specific. Everyone knows what you are referring to. So Monster gets dropped.
All that being said, I get annoyed when people just say Frakenstein too.
And yes, I can see where Dances with Wolves and Fern Gully could easily be inspirations as well. Likely even primary ones. That doesn't invalidate the process.
I don't understand your comment. You understand that inspiration does not mean copying? That it doesn't mean you repeat the names of characters?
I have no idea if Midworld was an inspiration to Avatar. But I can certainly see it. There are similarities that are obvious. There are also numerous differences.
If I ever saw Fantastic Planet I have no memory of it. But it the brief synopsis on IMDB would indicate it might be.
Inspiration involves taken things, movies you've seen, books you've read, scenes you've seen, locations you've been too, experiences you've had and mixing them up, taking some things out, adding other things, stirring in you own ideas and emotions and producing something new.
This is how a lot of art occurs. If you are not an artist yourself, you may not understand it. But to those of us that are, it is an everyday process; which is not to imply its easy.
It is unusual. However, it is not unheard of. On earth think of snakes. No legs. Dolphins and whales have lost their rear limbs.
Sometimes limbs are lost if they are not actually needed. Perhaps the Na'vi have vestigal limbs within their torsos?
Another possibility, though less likely in my mind, is they are a separate line of evolution than most of the rest of the planet. The compatibility of the mind sharing organs argues against that, but it is vaguely possible.
Of course the practical reason is they didn't want to put two additional limbs on the Na'vi. It could have been doable, especially since they were adding the tails. They likely thought it wouldn't be worth the effort.
Overall, I thought the world building was excellent. The story was weak, but I could live with that given the world.
Other than a brief mention of Star Trek technobabble, I thought we were talking about Star Wars.
Actually, set far in the past. Remember the opening lines "in a galaxy far, far away and long, long ago."
I repeat, an accusation against an innocent person is not criminal. If they sued they must prove that they are innocent. Since the person ultimately arrested in each episode is guilty (I believe perhaps once that proved not the case) they have no recourse. If she speculated that someone else was guilty, they might have a case, but it is unlikely since another, guilty, person is then accused.