Women are also rarely used as adversary, even though the female adversaries in any Star Trek movie or show were far, far more interesting, dangerous and cunning than their male counterparts. From the Borg Queen to Sela to that female founder, the female adversaries of the Star Trek universe were usually more memorable and a far better match to their Federation counterparts.
I mean, let's be honest, Tomalak was a pushover for Piccard, and so was Gowron.
What made TOS great was that it was controversial. That even carried over into TNG. It dared to touch topics that were an issue in its time. Racial tensions in the 60s, gender issues in the 90s. What's left for the 2010s? What topic could you touch without going SO far out that it turns cliche?
I loved Star Trek. TOS, TNG, you name it. Big time fan.
It all ended when they decided to "reboot" the show and give it the boot, literally so. Of course you can't really continue a show with actors that are either ancient, dead or both, and you cannot do the TNG-dance every other decade because, well, how far can technology advance before humans become fully redundant because technology literally has the ability from "poof - you're dead" to "poof - you're alive". Face it, watching a bunch of Qs meddling with time and space isn't really funny, nobody wants to watch a show consisting entirely of Mary Sues.
One Wesley was already more than anyone could stomach.
Maybe I'm also not the target audience, being old and no longer the target focus for movies. I haven't seen the last few and I most likely also won't see this one. Sorry for the nostalgic shit, but Kirk, Spock, Bones and Scotty are four old guys that are dead now. Ok, one is technically still alive, but you get the idea. If they want to rewind time and put the setting back into the 2200s, why not show the adventures of another crew? It could have been woven into the old stories of the Enterprise to make old fans happy, if only for the "oh I see what you did there!" effect, while effectively not really bothering any new fans who probably know nothing about the original show (and let's be honest here, the 60s TV show is cheesy as fuck by today's standards). That could have rebooted the franchise for sure.
What do we get instead? Well, basically what we got is that all we "knew", what has been established as canon and the stories that happened before, all that is simply tossed into the garbage can and you're expected to start over. And that's simply not working as well as it could. First, Star Trek is anything but unique today. It was in the 1960s, there was very little competition in the SciFi arena and it could easily gain a foothold, even with stories that were even for the time often sub par. If you want to succeed in the SciFi genre today, you have to pump a LOT of money to get noticed. That is of course easier if you can boast a known name, but if that name has been hollowed out as it has been here, you're basically trashing it. What they did was to throw away an existing fan base instead of building upon it. Because now you have to win us over again, there isn't anything in this Star Trek that I'd recognize anymore. But ok, fine, give me a story that I can relate to and believable characters.
And that's where it fails. Again, with new characters this could have worked. But if you reuse characters, people have expectations. You expect Kirk to be brave, cynical, able to make one of two faces and suck in his belly for at least 200 episodes. You expect a cold, logical Spock devoid of emotions. And if that expectations are not met, your reaction is that it's "wrong". Which is kinda sad because the characters aren't that bad at all. They just don't fit the boots they have been put into.
I don't really think we have to wait that long, there's already a sizable portion of the population that considers FB nothing less than the worst transgression of privacy since the fall of the iron curtain.
They have a lot of experience nuking tropical paradises, why not put their knowledge to good use finally? There's only one owner and if you time it just right, he'll be gone with the wind after the test...
Because I have pity with those electrons who would be abused by having to transport that bullshit. That, and that I have better things to do with my bandwidth and CPU cycles than wasting them on ads.
Seriously, there is more wrong with these few sentences up there than I have time to correct. Most of it has already been said, so why are we allowing someone whose words would be better redirected to/dev/null lest they get heard by young and impressionable ears and actually cause irreparable damage litter/.?
And between "you cannot tape this show" and "you cannot fast forward through this part", the whole DVR has become obsolete for most applications unless you know how to remove that bullshit from the equation. Yes, you can do that, maybe I can if I could be assed to find it out, but Joe Randomwatcher cannot.
And he will not give a shit about it if there's an alternative that doesn't require him to because there isn't anything to tape (the show happens when you want it) and there isn't anything to fast forward through.
Slashdot Mirror
Women are also rarely used as adversary, even though the female adversaries in any Star Trek movie or show were far, far more interesting, dangerous and cunning than their male counterparts. From the Borg Queen to Sela to that female founder, the female adversaries of the Star Trek universe were usually more memorable and a far better match to their Federation counterparts.
I mean, let's be honest, Tomalak was a pushover for Piccard, and so was Gowron.
Maybe I should indeed eventually get over the last movie...
I just doubt that it will.
What made TOS great was that it was controversial. That even carried over into TNG. It dared to touch topics that were an issue in its time. Racial tensions in the 60s, gender issues in the 90s. What's left for the 2010s? What topic could you touch without going SO far out that it turns cliche?
His security? Are you implying that he's using Facebook?
Dude, that guy may be much, but he's not THAT dumb.
I loved Star Trek. TOS, TNG, you name it. Big time fan.
It all ended when they decided to "reboot" the show and give it the boot, literally so. Of course you can't really continue a show with actors that are either ancient, dead or both, and you cannot do the TNG-dance every other decade because, well, how far can technology advance before humans become fully redundant because technology literally has the ability from "poof - you're dead" to "poof - you're alive". Face it, watching a bunch of Qs meddling with time and space isn't really funny, nobody wants to watch a show consisting entirely of Mary Sues.
One Wesley was already more than anyone could stomach.
Maybe I'm also not the target audience, being old and no longer the target focus for movies. I haven't seen the last few and I most likely also won't see this one. Sorry for the nostalgic shit, but Kirk, Spock, Bones and Scotty are four old guys that are dead now. Ok, one is technically still alive, but you get the idea. If they want to rewind time and put the setting back into the 2200s, why not show the adventures of another crew? It could have been woven into the old stories of the Enterprise to make old fans happy, if only for the "oh I see what you did there!" effect, while effectively not really bothering any new fans who probably know nothing about the original show (and let's be honest here, the 60s TV show is cheesy as fuck by today's standards). That could have rebooted the franchise for sure.
What do we get instead? Well, basically what we got is that all we "knew", what has been established as canon and the stories that happened before, all that is simply tossed into the garbage can and you're expected to start over. And that's simply not working as well as it could. First, Star Trek is anything but unique today. It was in the 1960s, there was very little competition in the SciFi arena and it could easily gain a foothold, even with stories that were even for the time often sub par. If you want to succeed in the SciFi genre today, you have to pump a LOT of money to get noticed. That is of course easier if you can boast a known name, but if that name has been hollowed out as it has been here, you're basically trashing it. What they did was to throw away an existing fan base instead of building upon it. Because now you have to win us over again, there isn't anything in this Star Trek that I'd recognize anymore. But ok, fine, give me a story that I can relate to and believable characters.
And that's where it fails. Again, with new characters this could have worked. But if you reuse characters, people have expectations. You expect Kirk to be brave, cynical, able to make one of two faces and suck in his belly for at least 200 episodes. You expect a cold, logical Spock devoid of emotions. And if that expectations are not met, your reaction is that it's "wrong". Which is kinda sad because the characters aren't that bad at all. They just don't fit the boots they have been put into.
Not just haole, he's even an asshaole.
Only in America could socialism be equated with liberalism...
Are you high, dumb or willfully ignorant?
Honest question.
Typical. We get two things we want and screw the natives over.
I don't really think we have to wait that long, there's already a sizable portion of the population that considers FB nothing less than the worst transgression of privacy since the fall of the iron curtain.
He does behave a lot like a little kid who got a credit card without a limit for his birthday, doesn't he?
But that's pretty much what happens with people who never had to earn money.
He's a bit late, 80 years ago they would not only have given him a bit of land but also a decent job and protected him day and night.
It's the plot of about a dozen A-Team episodes. Usually the asshole gets his ass handed in the end.
Why can't life follow TV a bit more?
I see your god and raise you a Pele. Let's see whose has more power come next eruption.
Not paying tax for years makes you forfeit your land?
Dibs on the Trump Tower!
They have a lot of experience nuking tropical paradises, why not put their knowledge to good use finally? There's only one owner and if you time it just right, he'll be gone with the wind after the test...
Because I have pity with those electrons who would be abused by having to transport that bullshit. That, and that I have better things to do with my bandwidth and CPU cycles than wasting them on ads.
Seriously, there is more wrong with these few sentences up there than I have time to correct. Most of it has already been said, so why are we allowing someone whose words would be better redirected to /dev/null lest they get heard by young and impressionable ears and actually cause irreparable damage litter /.?
Trust me. IoT toys trying hard to do their best in a DDoS attack are not really "devices (using) very little bandwidth".
And remember, most of those things will need a lot of bandwidth, DDoSs aren't known for their low bandwidth requirements.
IoT has been here before, but now you don't even have to connect your new TV with a cable to turn it into a high output spam machine!
Choice is good.
Do I have the choice "neither"? If so, I have more choice than I had in the last election.
And between "you cannot tape this show" and "you cannot fast forward through this part", the whole DVR has become obsolete for most applications unless you know how to remove that bullshit from the equation. Yes, you can do that, maybe I can if I could be assed to find it out, but Joe Randomwatcher cannot.
And he will not give a shit about it if there's an alternative that doesn't require him to because there isn't anything to tape (the show happens when you want it) and there isn't anything to fast forward through.
The part that explains why the hell I'd want that.
That would actually make breaking up these people and using that money to do something sensible a good idea...