|
Post by caseyrook AKA Mechelle on Oct 24, 2017 23:51:44 GMT
I feel sorry for those of you that spent money for all-access for this *ahem* so-called Star Trek venture. After 5 episodes, it is already straight in the tank. Horrid. Believe all the hate reviews on IMDb..they are spot on. I don't know WHAT in the hell CBS is thinking, this is about as far from Star Trek as it could possibly be. I've heard that complaint all over. I've also heard that this show is setting up Section 31 because a lot of what they've done on the show falls in line with Section 31 shenanigans. I'm not having that problem but I think that's a testament to me being a fairly new member of the Trek fandom and this being the first 'Trek' that I've ever watched when it was 'new'. That's also my excuse for liking the fourth Indiana Jones movie, btw. It being my first to see 'new' and me not knowing any better.
|
|
|
Post by ayanami on Oct 25, 2017 7:35:44 GMT
I feel sorry for those of you that spent money for all-access for this *ahem* so-called Star Trek venture. After 5 episodes, it is already straight in the tank. Horrid. Believe all the hate reviews on IMDb..they are spot on. I don't know WHAT in the hell CBS is thinking, this is about as far from Star Trek as it could possibly be. I've heard that complaint all over. I've also heard that this show is setting up Section 31 because a lot of what they've done on the show falls in line with Section 31 shenanigans. I'm not having that problem but I think that's a testament to me being a fairly new member of the Trek fandom and this being the first 'Trek' that I've ever watched when it was 'new'. That's also my excuse for liking the fourth Indiana Jones movie, btw. It being my first to see 'new' and me not knowing any better. Well, I've literally grown up with Star Trek and have seen every single episode since the days of TNG, and yet I still like it. Much more so than Enterprise for that matter. Helps that I actually care for the entire crew and don't want to kick half of them out the airlock. Sure it's a lot different than the old shows, but it still feels more ST to me than the reboot movies for example. That said, the premise (with the new drive and the flashy design) might have worked better in a future setting, after Voyager, but I guess with the destruction of Vulcan in the movie, they were forced to make it a sequel unless they wanted to confuse new fans with alternate timelines and such. Plus, in that case we wouldn't have goten Sarek, etc, obviously.
|
|
|
Post by caseyrook AKA Mechelle on Oct 25, 2017 7:53:35 GMT
I've heard that complaint all over. I've also heard that this show is setting up Section 31 because a lot of what they've done on the show falls in line with Section 31 shenanigans. I'm not having that problem but I think that's a testament to me being a fairly new member of the Trek fandom and this being the first 'Trek' that I've ever watched when it was 'new'. That's also my excuse for liking the fourth Indiana Jones movie, btw. It being my first to see 'new' and me not knowing any better. Well, I've literally grown up with Star Trek and have seen every single episode since the days of TNG, and yet I still like it. Much more so than Enterprise for that matter. Helps that I actually care for the entire crew and don't want to kick half of them out the airlock. Sure it's a lot different than the old shows, but it still feels more ST to me than the reboot movies for example. That said, the premise (with the new drive and the flashy design) might have worked better in a future setting, after Voyager, but I guess with the destruction of Vulcan in the movie, they were forced to make it a sequel unless they wanted to confuse new fans with alternate timelines and such. Plus, in that case we wouldn't have goten Sarek, etc, obviously. I've noticed that I tend to like the things that most peoople hate. For instance, ENT, Cpt. Archer, Indiana Jones 4, The Star Wars prequels, Agents of SHIELD...
|
|
|
Post by ayanami on Oct 25, 2017 9:19:17 GMT
Well, I've literally grown up with Star Trek and have seen every single episode since the days of TNG, and yet I still like it. Much more so than Enterprise for that matter. Helps that I actually care for the entire crew and don't want to kick half of them out the airlock. Sure it's a lot different than the old shows, but it still feels more ST to me than the reboot movies for example. That said, the premise (with the new drive and the flashy design) might have worked better in a future setting, after Voyager, but I guess with the destruction of Vulcan in the movie, they were forced to make it a sequel unless they wanted to confuse new fans with alternate timelines and such. Plus, in that case we wouldn't have goten Sarek, etc, obviously. I've noticed that I tend to like the things that most peoople hate. For instance, ENT, Cpt. Archer, Indiana Jones 4, The Star Wars prequels, Agents of SHIELD... Could you please refrain from naming AoS in the same sentence as Indiana Jones 4!
|
|
|
Post by caseyrook AKA Mechelle on Oct 25, 2017 16:07:28 GMT
I've noticed that I tend to like the things that most peoople hate. For instance, ENT, Cpt. Archer, Indiana Jones 4, The Star Wars prequels, Agents of SHIELD... Could you please refrain from naming AoS in the same sentence as Indiana Jones 4! For instance, ENT, Cpt. Archer, Indiana Jones 4, The Star Wars prequels. And also Agents of SHIELD... There. I fixed it.
|
|
|
Post by ayanami on Oct 25, 2017 16:32:06 GMT
Could you please refrain from naming AoS in the same sentence as Indiana Jones 4! For instance, ENT, Cpt. Archer, Indiana Jones 4, The Star Wars prequels. And also Agents of SHIELD... There. I fixed it. Yeah, not helping. Plus, it's not even as if people actually hate AoS. Even those who don't care for the show simply don't watch it. It's not like AoS ruined any characters, let alone franchises.
|
|
|
Post by caseyrook AKA Mechelle on Oct 25, 2017 16:39:27 GMT
For instance, ENT, Cpt. Archer, Indiana Jones 4, The Star Wars prequels. And also Agents of SHIELD... There. I fixed it. Yeah, not helping. Plus, it's not even as if people actually hate AoS. Even those who don't care for the show simply don't watch it. It's not like AoS ruined any characters, let alone franchises. Oh no, trust me, there are people who HATE AoS with a burning passion and who are consistently vocal when it gets renewed. I know because I have bad impulse control and get into Comment and Reply fights with them.
|
|
|
Post by ayanami on Oct 25, 2017 17:10:10 GMT
Yeah, not helping. Plus, it's not even as if people actually hate AoS. Even those who don't care for the show simply don't watch it. It's not like AoS ruined any characters, let alone franchises. Oh no, trust me, there are people who HATE AoS with a burning passion and who are consistently vocal when it gets renewed. I know because I have bad impulse control and get into Comment and Reply fights with them. Well, okay, there will obviously always be a small group of haters for literally EVERYTHING. I bet there are people who hate Game of Thrones or, Idk, happy hour at the local cocktail bar. Still, AoS does in no way incite the wide range loathing that Indy 4 or the Star Wars prequels (Jar Jar Binks in particular) for example incurred. Seriously, Southpark made an episode in response to the fourth Indiana Jones that features George Lucas and Steven Spielberg literally raping Indy. And people disliking the Star Wars prequels is basically a running gag in today's pop culture. (How I Met Your Mother repeatedly used that joke.) That's just a whole other level. So, no, Agents of Shield does not qualify as something people usually hate.
|
|
|
Post by DoTheMath on Oct 26, 2017 0:14:33 GMT
I'm one of the weirdos that actually (kinda) likes Indy 4. I don't consider it a great fit for the franchise, but I do (somewhat) enjoy it when I see it. I'm on again-off again on the SW prequels. I think what ruins it for me is the actor that played Darth Vader. May have been the first time I used the word "cringe"..... But there are aspects to the prequels I like, so I don't mind watching them. Thank God for the FF button on the remote.
|
|
|
Post by caseyrook AKA Mechelle on Oct 26, 2017 3:26:11 GMT
Oh no, trust me, there are people who HATE AoS with a burning passion and who are consistently vocal when it gets renewed. I know because I have bad impulse control and get into Comment and Reply fights with them. Well, okay, there will obviously always be a small group of haters for literally EVERYTHING. I bet there are people who hate Game of Thrones or, Idk, happy hour at the local cocktail bar. Still, AoS does in no way incite the wide range loathing that Indy 4 or the Star Wars prequels (Jar Jar Binks in particular) for example incurred. Seriously, Southpark made an episode in response to the fourth Indiana Jones that features George Lucas and Steven Spielberg literally raping Indy. And people disliking the Star Wars prequels is basically a running gag in today's pop culture. (How I Met Your Mother repeatedly used that joke.) That's just a whole other level. So, no, Agents of Shield does not qualify as something people usually hate. I've thought about this response since you posted it and I've come to the conclusion that you're right, AoS is not usually hated, or gates *on average*. However I will have to add that it is hated *unfairly* (by those who do hate it.)
|
|
|
Post by caseyrook AKA Mechelle on Oct 26, 2017 3:33:22 GMT
I'm one of the weirdos that actually (kinda) likes Indy 4. I don't consider it a great fit for the franchise, but I do (somewhat) enjoy it when I see it. I'm on again-off again on the SW prequels. I think what ruins it for me is the actor that played Darth Vader. May have been the first time I used the word "cringe"..... But there are aspects to the prequels I like, so I don't mind watching them. Thank God for the FF button on the remote. I know for the fact that I do not view the world in the same way as the average person, and especially don't view movies and TV shows in the same way. Meaning I'm not one to watch something and automatically find things that I hate about it, usually because my brain doesn't process enough information for me to have those thoughts right away. That's a long way of saying there's always more parts of something that I like than hate. ...Except season three Coulson. F*ck that guy.
|
|
|
Post by FreeKresge on Apr 19, 2021 5:18:35 GMT
I do not subscribe to CBS All Access (now rebranded as Paramount+), so I did not get a chance to see Star Trek: Discovery when everyone else did. CBS decided to air the first season on its broadcast channel, presumably due in part to lack of new content. I recorded the season on my DVR and recently had a chance to watch it. Overall, I liked it, not enough to subscribe to Paramount+, but I would watch if CBS decides to broadcast the second season. The premiere episode of a show usually introduces the main characters. I found it interesting that the series started with a two-episode prologue in which maybe five characters had any development at all, two of which did not survive the second episode with a third surviving only until about the middle of the season. It is not unusual in a show like this for a character to act in a way that would never be tolerated in real life but is often treated as no big deal on the show. For example, Simmons has performed a handful of acts that could theoretically merit a death penalty or a severe prison sentence. I like the fact that Michael Burnham faced a court martial and received a plausible sentence for her mutiny, given the fact that the Federation is advanced enough to have abolished the death penalty. In the end, she was forgiven a bit too easily, but at least the show took the act seriously for a bit. I also find this interesting because for nearly a quarter century, I have had a pitch for a new Star Trek series in my head that centered on a disgraced Starfleet officer. A huge difference is that, in my pitch, the audience would not learn exactly why the officer is disgraced until the cliffhanger between the second and third seasons rather than in the first two episodes. Were we really supposed to be surprised that Voq was in Ash Taylor? At least Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. made the effort to cast two different actors to play Andrew Garner and Lash, and even that did not fool many people. I think that I will comment on posts from other threads here. no, Michael is not a proper women's name! I don't care that it's the future, I don't care that there are real-life examples of women with that name, and I don't care that the show's creator has a history of doing that (Dead Like Me, Pushing Daisies; just that in those cases the male names were nicknames!), it's stupid! Regarding Michael as a female name: There are several names in English that used to be primarily male names that are now primarily female names (e.g., Ashley). I can buy that the same happens to Michael, or that the transition may be happening when the show takes place. However, this is ruined by having Tilly say that she has never heard of a woman named Michael except for the hated mutineer. I feel sorry for those of you that spent money for all-access for this *ahem* so-called Star Trek venture. After 5 episodes, it is already straight in the tank. Horrid. Believe all the hate reviews on IMDb..they are spot on. I don't know WHAT in the hell CBS is thinking, this is about as far from Star Trek as it could possibly be. Each new Star Trek series has a dilemma: It needs to be close enough to the other Star Treks to be part of the greater universe while still being different enough from them to have a unique identity. While I disagree with the negative evaluation of the show, I agree that Discovery, at least in the first season, may lean a bit more toward having its own identity over fitting in with the other shows. It is more serialized than the previous series, but that does not bug me because that is where television has been trending. The part that bugs me a bit more is that Discovery has a single lead character with everyone else being supporting. The Original Series had Kirk and Spock as dual protagonists, and all the other Star Treks were ensembles. I wish that Discovery did not spend as much time on Burnham and instead spent more time on characters like Saru, Stamets, and Tilly. In some ways, this show makes more sense as a reboot or an alternate universe to the previous live-action Star Treks. Besides the different appearances of the Klingons, this series has Starfleet learning about the mirror universe and cloaked ships earlier than in Star Trek: The Original Series. Discovery has holodeck and replicator technology that will be absent until The Next Generation. I might add the fact that Spock had a human sister that was never mentioned, but Star Trek V gave him a brother that was never mentioned. The biggest difference is the spore drive. If this series takes place in the same universe as the previous shows, then we know that it fails or it proves to be impractical or that somehow all data will be lost or something else will happen to ensure that no future ship has the technology. I've seen many people compare Lorca to Kirk. I don't see it. If anything, Lorca is channeling Archer in season three. Think about it: *Single mindedness to the point of being a danger to ship and crew. *Aversion/Ignorance to Authority. *Captured and Tortured: Precedes to still take the Captain's chair without getting emotional and psychological help (see fact one.) *Doesn't play nice with people who oppose him (on his side). *Will do ANYTHING to stay in the Captain's chair. *Basically tells Vulcans to "Suck It!" *Thinks he can do whatever he wants because he and his ship are important to the Admiralty. I see very few of these traits in Kirk. (Although, admittedly Kirk is my least favorite Captain and therefore my lack of knowledge of Kirk could be showing.) ((Also, i'm leaving Sisko and Janeway out of this because I haven't seen their entire series'. Picard has barely one of these traits in common, though he was never really at war.)) EDIT: Ahaha. Change a few of these terms and circumstances, and I've just described season three Coulson. I agree that I do not see much of a resemblance between Lorca and Kirk, or with Picard beyond going back to the captain's chair after being captured and tortured without seeking psychological help. I remember this one because one of the episodes in which this happened was very influential to the Star Trek pitch mentioned above. (The episode when the Cardassians captured Picard, not the one when the Borg captured him.) Star Trek: Enterprise was my least favorite Star Trek (I even skipped the final season), so I do not have a strong memory of Archer. However, I trust Caseyrook's analysis. In fact, reading this one reminds me that I miss her analyses. I definitely see a lot of Coulson in this analysis of Lorca, except that I do not recall Coulson telling Vulcans to "Suck it!" I can add another similarity between Lorca and (first-season) Coulson. Both are middle aged men who picked a young woman with a shady background to join their team despite the strong reservations of other high-ranking members of the team. Both Coulson and Lorca seemed to favor this young woman above all others. Of course, we later learned that Lorca had a very specific reason why he favored this particular woman. By the way, we did not see much of Picard in wartime, other than the alternate timeline in "Yesterday's Enterprise." However, he was involved in the Cardassian War before the beginning of Star Trek: The Next Generation. [In a "who would win in a fight" thread] Captain Lorca or Lucius Malfoy? I'm going with Lorca. Yes Malfoy has magic but I feel like Lorca would win by sheer will alone, especially since he'd see a weakness in Malfoy right away: that Malfoy is too reliant on magic. Based on the Lorca that we saw in episodes three through nine. this would depend on the rules. If Malfoy gets his wand and Lorca gets a phaser, the winner would probably be whoever gets off the first shot. Still, J.K. Rowling stated that wizards have no defense against shotguns, which is why wizards prefer to hide from muggles. This would suggest that the phaser would be better than the wand. Based on what we learned later, I would have to lean toward Malfoy. Not only was Lorca stupid enough to go against Michelle Yeoh, he actually believed that he had her at his mercy and started monologuing. Anyone who underestimates Michelle Yeoh deserves to lose. What part of "Michelle Yeoh" did he not understand. The worst that Malfoy did was underestimate Dobby, which is not the same. I've noticed that I tend to like the things that most peoople hate. For instance, ENT, Cpt. Archer, Indiana Jones 4, The Star Wars prequels, Agents of SHIELD... Could you please refrain from naming AoS in the same sentence as Indiana Jones 4! For instance, ENT, Cpt. Archer, Indiana Jones 4, The Star Wars prequels. And also Agents of SHIELD... There. I fixed it. My views: - ENT, Cpt. Archer—This is my least favorite Star Trek. I would not say that I hate it, but I am not fond of the show.
- Indiana Jones 4—I liked this. I still put it below Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade, but I consider it to be better than Temple of Doom. Both Harrison Ford and Karen Allen were good, and I am willing to forget the son. Some things do not make sense (like surviving a nuclear blast in a refrigerator, but it is not as if everything in the other films made sense (e.g., riding for hundreds of miles on the outside of a submarine).
- The Star Wars prequels—I thought that The Phantom Menace would be remembered as a decent but not great action film if it did not have the expectations that come with being Star Wars: Episode I. Attack of the Clones, my least favorite, made me think about how a society capable of creating things like faster-than-light travel fell apart because nobody bothered to invent the cold shower. I liked Revenge of the Sith, but did not think that it rose to the levels of the original trilogy.
- Agents of SHIELD—While I may be disappointed with some of the episodes and storylines, I would not be here if I did not love the show.
I have to admit, I liked the show. Some parts kind of lost my attention, but I enjoyed it. But I had issues with the way it ended. 1. I was not happy that Burnham got a clear record, a medal, and, essentially, her job back. They do remember that she started a war and was responsible for the loss of 1000's of lives right? It's the same thing I say about Picard after Locutus, and another lead of a TV show after a certain point in their third season: DON'T GIVE THEM THEIR JOB BACK! 2. One of my favorite characters ended up being Cornwall so I was not happy with her or Sarek for going with the Empress's plan. 3. I really, really, wanted Prime Lorca to make an appearance, or at least have the show make a reference that he was alive in the Mirror Universe. They never proved he was dead, they only speculated it. I have to confess, that very much bothered me. I actually really did like Lorca. Even when I knew his true origin. 4. I know these arguments are unpopular some circles of the ST fandom, but I wish more was done to 'contain' the Mirror Universe. With the Empress running free around the Prime Universe, it's now very unlikely that Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise wouldn't have knowledge of it in 10 years. Point 1—It is so common for actions like Burnham's to get forgiven by the end of the episode that I am grateful that she at least served six months in prison. Point 2—I think that this is a bit more realistic. People may hold ideals about how one should conduct war, but war is an inherently evil act. Once one crosses that line, or is forced to cross that line, ideals start to disappear. How often are the Allies depicted as being noble in World War II despite atrocities like the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo or the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? These events took place when the the Allies were winning the war. Imagine how desperate one may become when losing a war. Point 3—I think that the rule is if there is no body, then the character is alive. I have not seen any episodes past the first season, so I do not know if the issue has been resolved. I am inclined to say that Prime Lorca is still alive and will eventually make an appearance if he has not already, but I probably would have said the same thing about Vijay Nadeer. Point 4—The show seemed to handwave this by making the mirror universe super top secret. However, how many people serve on the Discovery? Does Starfleet really think that something that widely known would stay secret? Many of the people on the ship have probably just lost loved ones, and Starfleet specifically planted the idea in their minds that the mirror universe could contain another version of these loved ones.
|
|
|
Post by caseyrook AKA Mechelle on Apr 19, 2021 5:45:49 GMT
I do not subscribe to CBS All Access (now rebranded as Paramount+), so I did not get a chance to see Star Trek: Discovery when everyone else did. CBS decided to air the first season on its broadcast channel, presumably due in part to lack of new content. I recorded the season on my DVR and recently had a chance to watch it. Overall, I liked it, not enough to subscribe to Paramount+, but I would watch if CBS decides to broadcast the second season. The premiere episode of a show usually introduces the main characters. I found it interesting that the series started with a two-episode prologue in which maybe five characters had any development at all, two of which did not survive the second episode with a third surviving only until about the middle of the season. It is not unusual in a show like this for a character to act in a way that would never be tolerated in real life but is often treated as no big deal on the show. For example, Simmons has performed a handful of acts that could theoretically merit a death penalty or a severe prison sentence. I like the fact that Michael Burnham faced a court martial and received a plausible sentence for her mutiny, given the fact that the Federation is advanced enough to have abolished the death penalty. In the end, she was forgiven a bit too easily, but at least the show took the act seriously for a bit. I also find this interesting because for nearly a quarter century, I have had a pitch for a new Star Trek series in my head that centered on a disgraced Starfleet officer. A huge difference is that, in my pitch, the audience would not learn exactly why the officer is disgraced until the cliffhanger between the second and third seasons rather than in the first two episodes. Were we really supposed to be surprised that Voq was in Ash Taylor? At least Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. made the effort to cast two different actors to play Andrew Garner and Lash, and even that did not fool many people. I think that I will comment on posts from other threads here. no, Michael is not a proper women's name! I don't care that it's the future, I don't care that there are real-life examples of women with that name, and I don't care that the show's creator has a history of doing that (Dead Like Me, Pushing Daisies; just that in those cases the male names were nicknames!), it's stupid! Regarding Michael as a female name: There are several names in English that used to be primarily male names that are now primarily female names (e.g., Ashley). I can buy that the same happens to Michael, or that the transition may be happening when the show takes place. However, this is ruined by having Tilly say that she has never heard of a woman named Michael except for the hated mutineer. I feel sorry for those of you that spent money for all-access for this *ahem* so-called Star Trek venture. After 5 episodes, it is already straight in the tank. Horrid. Believe all the hate reviews on IMDb..they are spot on. I don't know WHAT in the hell CBS is thinking, this is about as far from Star Trek as it could possibly be. Each new Star Trek series has a dilemma: It needs to be close enough to the other Star Treks to be part of the greater universe while still being different enough from them to have a unique identity. While I disagree with the negative evaluation of the show, I agree that Discovery, at least in the first season, may lean a bit more toward having its own identity over fitting in with the other shows. It is more serialized than the previous series, but that does not bug me because that is where television has been trending. The part that bugs me a bit more is that Discovery has a single lead character with everyone else being supporting. The Original Series had Kirk and Spock as dual protagonists, and all the other Star Treks were ensembles. I wish that Discovery did not spend as much time on Burnham and instead spent more time on characters like Saru, Stamets, and Tilly. In some ways, this show makes more sense as a reboot or an alternate universe to the previous live-action Star Treks. Besides the different appearances of the Klingons, this series has Starfleet learning about the mirror universe and cloaked ships earlier than in Star Trek: The Original Series. Discovery has holodeck and replicator technology that will be absent until The Next Generation. I might add the fact that Spock had a human sister that was never mentioned, but Star Trek V gave him a brother that was never mentioned. The biggest difference is the spore drive. If this series takes place in the same universe as the previous shows, then we know that it fails or it proves to be impractical or that somehow all data will be lost or something else will happen to ensure that no future ship has the technology. I've seen many people compare Lorca to Kirk. I don't see it. If anything, Lorca is channeling Archer in season three. Think about it: *Single mindedness to the point of being a danger to ship and crew. *Aversion/Ignorance to Authority. *Captured and Tortured: Precedes to still take the Captain's chair without getting emotional and psychological help (see fact one.) *Doesn't play nice with people who oppose him (on his side). *Will do ANYTHING to stay in the Captain's chair. *Basically tells Vulcans to "Suck It!" *Thinks he can do whatever he wants because he and his ship are important to the Admiralty. I see very few of these traits in Kirk. (Although, admittedly Kirk is my least favorite Captain and therefore my lack of knowledge of Kirk could be showing.) ((Also, i'm leaving Sisko and Janeway out of this because I haven't seen their entire series'. Picard has barely one of these traits in common, though he was never really at war.)) EDIT: Ahaha. Change a few of these terms and circumstances, and I've just described season three Coulson. I agree that I do not see much of a resemblance between Lorca and Kirk, or with Picard beyond going back to the captain's chair after being captured and tortured without seeking psychological help. I remember this one because one of the episodes in which this happened was very influential to the Star Trek pitch mentioned above. (The episode when the Cardassians captured Picard, not the one when the Borg captured him.) Star Trek: Enterprise was my least favorite Star Trek (I even skipped the final season), so I do not have a strong memory of Archer. However, I trust Caseyrook's analysis. In fact, reading this one reminds me that I miss her analyses. I definitely see a lot of Coulson in this analysis of Lorca, except that I do not recall Coulson telling Vulcans to "Suck it!" I can add another similarity between Lorca and (first-season) Coulson. Both are middle aged men who picked a young woman with a shady background to join their team despite the strong reservations of other high-ranking members of the team. Both Coulson and Lorca seemed to favor this young woman above all others. Of course, we later learned that Lorca had a very specific reason why he favored this particular woman. By the way, we did not see much of Picard in wartime, other than the alternate timeline in "Yesterday's Enterprise." However, he was involved in the Cardassian War before the beginning of Star Trek: The Next Generation. [In a "who would win in a fight" thread] Captain Lorca or Lucius Malfoy? I'm going with Lorca. Yes Malfoy has magic but I feel like Lorca would win by sheer will alone, especially since he'd see a weakness in Malfoy right away: that Malfoy is too reliant on magic. Based on the Lorca that we saw in episodes three through nine. this would depend on the rules. If Malfoy gets his wand and Lorca gets a phaser, the winner would probably be whoever gets off the first shot. Still, J.K. Rowling stated that wizards have no defense against shotguns, which is why wizards prefer to hide from muggles. This would suggest that the phaser would be better than the wand. Based on what we learned later, I would have to lean toward Malfoy. Not only was Lorca stupid enough to go against Michelle Yeoh, he actually believed that he had her at his mercy and started monologuing. Anyone who underestimates Michelle Yeoh deserves to lose. What part of "Michelle Yeoh" did he not understand. The worst that Malfoy did was underestimate Dobby, which is not the same. For instance, ENT, Cpt. Archer, Indiana Jones 4, The Star Wars prequels. And also Agents of SHIELD... There. I fixed it. My views: - ENT, Cpt. Archer—This is my least favorite Star Trek. I would not say that I hate it, but I am not fond of the show.
- Indiana Jones 4—I liked this. I still put it below Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade, but I consider it to be better than Temple of Doom. Both Harrison Ford and Karen Black were good, and I am willing to forget the son. Some things do not make sense (like surviving a nuclear blast in a refrigerator, but it is not as if everything in the other films made sense (e.g., riding for hundreds of miles on the outside of a submarine).
- The Star Wars prequels—I thought that The Phantom Menace would be remembered as a decent but not great action film if it did not have the expectations that come with being Star Wars: Episode I. Attack of the Clones, my least favorite, made me think about how a society capable of creating things like faster-than-light travel fell apart because nobody bothered to invent the cold shower. I liked Revenge of the Sith, but did not think that it rose to the levels of the original trilogy.
- Agents of SHIELD—While I may be disappointed with some of the episodes and storylines, I would not be here if I did not love the show.
I have to admit, I liked the show. Some parts kind of lost my attention, but I enjoyed it. But I had issues with the way it ended. 1. I was not happy that Burnham got a clear record, a medal, and, essentially, her job back. They do remember that she started a war and was responsible for the loss of 1000's of lives right? It's the same thing I say about Picard after Locutus, and another lead of a TV show after a certain point in their third season: DON'T GIVE THEM THEIR JOB BACK! 2. One of my favorite characters ended up being Cornwall so I was not happy with her or Sarek for going with the Empress's plan. 3. I really, really, wanted Prime Lorca to make an appearance, or at least have the show make a reference that he was alive in the Mirror Universe. They never proved he was dead, they only speculated it. I have to confess, that very much bothered me. I actually really did like Lorca. Even when I knew his true origin. 4. I know these arguments are unpopular some circles of the ST fandom, but I wish more was done to 'contain' the Mirror Universe. With the Empress running free around the Prime Universe, it's now very unlikely that Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise wouldn't have knowledge of it in 10 years. Point 1—It is so common for actions like Burnham's to get forgiven by the end of the episode that I am grateful that she at least served six months in prison. Point 2—I think that this is a bit more realistic. People may hold ideals about how one should conduct war, but war is an inherently evil act. Once one crosses that line, or is forced to cross that line, ideals start to disappear. How often are the Allies depicted as being noble in World War II despite atrocities like the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo or the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? These events took place when the the Allies were winning the war. Imagine how desperate one may become when losing a war. Point 3—I think that the rule is if there is no body, then the character is alive. I have not seen any episodes past the first season, so I do not know if the issue has been resolved. I am inclined to say that Prime Lorca is still alive and will eventually make an appearance if he has not already, but I probably would have said the same thing about Vijay Nadeer. Point 4—The show seemed to handwave this by making the mirror universe super top secret. However, how many people serve on the Discovery? Does Starfleet really think that something that widely known would stay secret? Many of the people on the ship have probably just lost loved ones, and Starfleet specifically planted the idea in their minds that the mirror universe could contain another version of these loved ones. You really wanted my attention today, didn't you? I've been so out of the loop on New Trek that the most recent one I've watched was "Picard" (and loved it by the way). I haven't even watched DSC season 3 because my obsessions haven't blown that way. In case you're interested, my current obsession is Air Disasters because apparently my brain likes to watch planes crash?
|
|