Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by pavonis

  1. I see what you're saying, and it makes sense. Trek has immediate pop culture recognition. Which means, if they're going to do more Trek, and take JJ's Trek as a model of (moderate?) success, then revisiting TOS characters and settings makes total sense. Why gamble on new characters in a 24th century setting when recent success has been in the 23rd century settings? So I do wonder why they needed to establish their main character as having a connection to Spock. A brand new character in a prequel era that could have crossed paths with Spock, et al, without violating any "canon" should have been enough to quiet the continuity snobs. So I can only wonder what the motive to connect Michael Burnham to Spock through Sarek was.


    And since the comparably recognizable characters from the 24th century are Picard and Data, and they're making a Picard series, I guess it's smart to build off a pre-existing familiarity rather than gamble with a new character. I say let them try all these ideas, and see which ones stick. Seems like that's what they're doing anyway. A Section 31 show is in the works. A new animated series, too. Why not a West Wing Trek, or an Academy Trek? Even the weirdest ideas might find an outlet on TV soon. It's kind of exciting, but something will piss off some part of the fanbase.

  2. From a narrative/story standpoint, what's the point of making it at all? I don't know anything about how series are developed, so why do producers/writers choose one genre and setting over another? Trek has automatic appeal and recognition, so I get why they picked that brand. But do they do background research with focus groups? Did they check to see if setting a new show in Trek's relative future would get better ratings? I guess we'll see if Picard's new series gets better viewership than Disco, and we'll be able to compare it to the next 23rd century series. But are ratings/viewership meaningful metrics anymore? If Disco is aimed at the general public, then putting it on a streaming platform doesn't seem like a good way to go. I know they are trying to migrate to the new format of TV service and attract viewers, but Trek isn't enough to hang a network on, is it? If it's really just aimed at the Trek fans who were far more likely to pay to see a new show anyway, then hanging an entire series on some details that just established backstory a long time ago might be just the way to attract those target viewers. Even if they pay just to hate-watch it.



  3. 4. I still don't see why this show had to be a prequel. In fact, I think had they pulled a TNG and just jumped to the far future it could have explained all the tech, new aliens, changes to familiar things and pretty much everything. The only thing the prequel gives them is Michael having grown up with Spock, and I haven't seen anything that is worth that. She could have been a human raised by Vulcans with an estranged brother-- it being Spock gets them nothing.

    I like that it's a prequel. There's still lots of stuff to do in the 23rd century. Not that I expected Discovery to answer these questions, but since they went there -


    • The Pike-Spock relationship In "The Cage" Pike and Spock barely interact and don't seem close (at least no closer than any other officers), but in "The Menagerie" Spock is willing to hijack the Enterprise to take Pike to Talos IV. How did that relationship develop? Maybe we will get some insight there.
    • Why is it the Christopher Pike Medal of Valor? Pike has a medal of valor named after him in the 24th century, and is already considered one of Starfleet's finest captains in the 2250s. I'm interested in seeing more of Pike's exploits. Show us why he's one of the greatest Starfleet officers in history. What do you have to do above and beyond the normal Starfleet behavior to earn that level of recognition? Discovery may be our chance to see that.
    • Does Pike actually return to Enterprise after commanding Discovery? "The Menagerie" has Kirk stating he met Pike when Pike was promoted to fleet captain, and that Kirk "took over the Enterprise from him". Does that mean Pike was still the commanding officer at that time, or was Pike in charge of the change of command ceremony? Maybe a stretch, there, but Trek canon has a lot of little holes in it, so it can stretch a bit.
    • Did Spock learn a thing or two about mutiny from his foster sibling? He commandeered the Enterprise again in "Amok Time" (more or less, since he wasn't quite in his right mind), and didn't get punished at all. So much for being the best First Officer in the fleet - he's basically mutinied more often than Michael Burnham with far fewer consequences. Maybe she taught him how not to conduct a mutiny!

    Sarek definitely has a thing for humans. Two human wives and a human foster daughter. How many other Vulcans would take a human into their family? How many other Vulcans married humans? Kirk didn't seem surprised the Vulcan ambassador had a human wife. Since he knew Spock has half-human, but not that Sarek and Amanda were his parents, what does that imply about human-Vulcan marriages? Are they common enough to make it unremarkable? Getting some insight into 23rd century Vulcan isn't a bad idea to me.


    At least we have a Picard-centered limited series to give us a glimpse into the late 24th century, post-Nemesis galaxy. Maybe they'll develop a far-future Trek series next, maybe using the Short Trek episode "Calypso" as a jumping off point?

  4. I am. It's fine. I like Trek, I know the lore, and even though the visuals are different, I accept it. I always figure the depiction is an approximation of the "real" Trek universe.


    I think the second season is shaping up well. So far it's been interesting, and I like getting to know the bridge crew characters a little more. At least they're getting some development. Anson Mount as Pike is really good. It almost seems a shame to have to put him back on the Enterprise eventually.



    I no longer care about civility for deceivers.


    Anyone that defends the zero tolerance policy and claims it was not the intent of the policy to separate families when that is the direct result of the policy is lunatic.


    Anyone that continues to parrot that this was not Trumps policy and was a law he had to follow is either ignorant or willfully lying.

    Sorry to hear that. But it is the truth.

    Sounds like you agree with Robin.

  6. So you don't think these asylum seekers are being set up for later arrest by being turned away at a proper port of entry, Poe? It's a lot of effort on the part of ICE for what I understood to be a misdemeanor.


    I'm not sure "zero tolerance" policies are ever good.

  7. Just hope they show up for court. Which they won't .

    The "90% don't show up" stat is apparently made-up, "fake news" if you will. It's more like 30%. Is that any worse than American citizens failing to appear in court for misdemeanors?


    It was shown earlier that you can apply for asylum at anything. Correct. But you can't just show up at any point. There are entry points where you can apply for asylum. Any place else though you have to be detained before you can apply. DHS is saying that this isn't what's happening. They say that the majority of people detained have already crossed illegally. Also more than 80% of minors detained are unaccompanied or accompanied by someone who isn't their parent.


    There are slot of unknowns to this and people are reacting to pictures and videos without either full context or a semblance of the truth. I saw on the news last night an interview with Obama in '14 where he flat out says that they intended for detaining and separations to be a deterrent. People freak out over what Kelly said, but are ignorant to what the previous president said. I know the what about-ism gets old, but you can't ignore the truth to make yourself feel better.


    I'm no expert on asylum law or procedures, but if asylum seekers are trying to enter at a proper port and get turned away, I doubt they'll simply give up and go back home. This administration is apparently keen on discouraging people from even trying to get asylum.


    And, yes, "what about Obama"-ism does get old, so why do you bring it up? It doesn't justify anything. Obama has been out of office for over 500 days now. When will "What About Obama/Hillary/Democrats" end?



    People claiming asylum need to have their claims investigated. Where they're caught doesn't matter.

    Again, I don't understand the point. The asylum claims are being processed. If they weren't, there wouldn't be anything to talk about because parents wouldn't be detained while waiting for the asylum claims to be resolved.


    Seriously, I don't see what the purpose is of bringing up a law as there's nothing about the situation that runs contrary to it.

    They're being arrested and detained without cause. Showing up at the border isn't illegal. This administration is treating it like it's illegal though, and the zero-tolerance policy that is separating families is absolutely deliberate, not a "snafu" or a "snag". They want it to be a deterrent, and the Trump administration was talking about it in early 2017.


    The border officials are lying to people, saying "the quota" is filled, or that they need visas to enter. You don't need paperwork to ask for asylum before you get here, and there are no quotas. So they get arrested and separated from their families because they showed up looking for safety.


    The whole situation is heartless and cruel. Politically the optics are bad and so it's unsustainable - even Republicans won't be able to support tearing families apart for misdemeanors, not if they want to continue being the party of "family values" (though I think they've given that up long ago).

  10. People claiming asylum need to have their claims investigated. Where they're caught doesn't matter.


    Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such aliens status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

  11. So, you can produce slightly more than a quip and trollish comment. You're capable of acting like an adult! Why don't you do it more often? Also, I'm probably within 15% of your age, so "kid" doesn't really apply, unless you consider yourself adolescent. You are very focused on sexuality lately, particularly Lando's.


    So, you do have empathy - how come you don't display it on the forums?


    Anyway, It's not "futile". We have a forum for discussing events with people of different views, why not use it? The idea that there's no point in the discussion is part of the larger political problems we're facing - that there is no conversation with anyone that isn't already in 100% agreement with you. I might be able to learn something from you, if you were willing or able to articulate your point of view.

  12. So you're a nihilist? No, that can't be right. You're probably not that deep, not from what you usually post here.


    I could agree that most actions at the individual level have no lasting consequences, but presidents' actions do last. Trump is normalizing extreme behavior, and rejects the notion that "knowing things" is valuable. Why shouldn't people get "butthurt" (oh, how eloquent you are - do you write poetry?) over the ridiculous, random, irrational behavior of the nominal (ha!) leader of our country? Surely you get "butthurt" about something, once in a while, but you can't empathize with anyone, do you? That would require caring about something. Maybe you are a nihilist.

  • Create New...