Sisko seems like the type of guy that you invite to a party and he spends the whole evening in your kitchen because the marinara that came with your mozzarella sticks “doesn’t have enough kick to it”
Sisko can and should show up on SNW to help Pike get his jambalaya recipe just right, then vanish without any explanation other than that he needs to get back to his children and wife.
Sisko insists it’s important to the future, but really he just can’t personally accept the existence of sub-standard jambalaya at any point in history.
So while not loving Discovery, it’s not so much the crying that got me, I just always feel like I’m watching therapy…innnn spaaaace. It just isn’t very interesting to me personally. I still found it enjoyable enough though.
I could sort of deal with that. I just didn’t like how focused it was on Michael Burnham and how she is the most important person in the universe. Star Trek is supposed to be an ensemble show, and I would dare say that it shouldn’t really have a main character with the understanding that the captain gets more focus generally. It also felt like the writers didn’t really like Star Trek that much and there was a lot of stuff that didn’t make sense if you poked at it.
I’d strongly argue against that last part considering Brian Fuller wrote for DS9 and was producer and writer for most of Voyager. Kurzman is also writer and producer for Picard and SNW.
I actually didn’t know. The difference seemed trivial to me, and it still does. It really doesn’t change their message or anything.
It never bothered me at all, nevermind bothering me enough to dig into information about them to figure it out; regardless, that’s a nice thing to know in the situation.
I mean, usually when theres two names in wikipedia its because they transitioned from one to the other, to me she looks like her identified gender, but I guess I can see why others didnt. I just double checked with a quick google search, it wasnt an intense investigation
I don’t really think people’s curiosity is just cause to violate her privacy. It’s entirely up to her to decide to share that information or not.
I don’t understand people’s fascination with it. I’m fairly indifferent about people’s genders or sexual preferences in general. You make the choice that suits you best, I’ll do the same for me. If you want to be called he/she/they/whatever, then fine, that’s cool. I’ll do my best to respect your wish to be referred to by a particular title/pronoun. It makes no difference to me.
I’m also pretty indifferent about how people refer to me. Call me sir, miss, he, she, they, them, “hey you”… I don’t honestly care. I’m fine with gender normative terms and that’s what I tell people that I “prefer” but honestly, I could not care any less. I usually avoid gendered terms as much as I can when I’m in someone’s presence; I’m also bad with names, so I usually just use personal direct pronouns such as “you”. I try my best to side step the whole issue because it’s trivial in my mind. I won’t fault someone for caring about it, the same way I don’t care if someone gets my name wrong, or says it differently. I don’t care enough to correct them, and I don’t care that it’s wrong unless they need to enter my legal name into a thing for something, which is when it actually matters, legally, so I’ll correct them at that point. The only other correction I’ll make is to avoid confusion with coworkers. I work with some people who have similar sounding names to mine, so I’ll correct clients and co-workers so that I’m not conflated with them (and I don’t take flack for something they did, and they don’t take flack for something I’ve done, etc). Beyond that, I couldn’t care less. At the same time, people have gotten angry with me for pronouncing their name slightly wrong, so I know people are out there with very strong opinions on it.
Maybe I’m weird. Who knows. There’s just so many more important things in the world than what people call me that I’m just consistently unbothered by people getting it wrong.
All I did was look at “leave Brittany alone” on google and then click wikipedia. Everything I shared here is public info and thus I didnt invade anyones privacy? This comment chain has been fairly low importance/care, I dont think any of here care about her gender all that much more than you do. The last few comments where just about the awkward nature of potentially misgendering someone by accident
Yeah, I agree, this chain has mostly been about the awkward parts of it. I didn’t mean to imply you invaded her privacy, someone may have in the pursuit of the information, but I certainly didn’t mean to imply that was you.
Regardless, whether her privacy was invaded or not, the information is now out there about her, and that is what I had assumed you were referring to. The misunderstanding stems from my comments; specifically that when such a question is raised, some may seek that information quite enthusiastically, even if obtaining it means that you’re invading their privacy. I don’t know if that’s what occurred, but the fervent pursuit of relatively trivial information, damaging someone’s right to privacy in the process is questionable at best. I’m just trying to make a comment on the ethics and morals of those that desire information for no better reason than to have it about someone they don’t even know.
I would rather not think that people would simply disregard her rights just to have a trivial question answered, but I don’t have that much faith in humanity.
I’m certain you’re fine and you’ve done nothing wrong in this instance. I apologize if my words implied any differently. That was not my intention.
Thats fair enough and a valid point! I do have a tendency to use the internet to double check facts, but in cases such that it might intrude on privacy, I try to keep it to a basic search so that I can minimize that risk. In this case it was just confusion on the presenting gender of a person from a meme, and so I double checked if I was the one in the wrong, turns out I was right in a way I wasnt expecting. I hope you have a pleasant day as well!
Neither is right. Kirk is Richard Feynman - huge dork, bends the rules, still has the pull of a neutron star. Picard is James May - precise, technical, obsessive, and constantly surprising people who expect he’s boring.
While that post is technically correct, they’re only bringing up stuff from their youths. Picard mellowed out a hell of a lot as he got older and is an extremely calm and diplomatic individual by the time he takes command of the Enterprise. Kirk cheating on the Kobayashi Maru was his first step in realizing that he could get away with almost anything if the results were good enough. These experiences do help them a lot later on, though; Picard’s reckless and rebellious phase means that later on he was extremely good at keeping his cool in dangerous situations and assessing risk, while Kirk’s intelligence and knowledge is why he’s able to make his zany plan work even though he only came up with it five seconds ago.
Picard is like if Indiana Jones was injured and had to stick to just teaching.
Kirk is like if Velma Dinkley started solving mysteries by punching out the monster the first time they met.
I strongly suspect Discovery was written and acted by people who have never seen actual shit or suffered trauma.
If they had, perhaps they would realise that people who've been through a lot are often the (seemingly) calmest or least emotional person in the room when shit hits the fan. It isn't their first rodeo. Or they're bitter and angry arseholes. Basically Jean Luc Picard or Liam Shaw are far more realistic portrayals of people who have gone through shit.
Discovery always struck me as a sci-fi show written by the same people who wrote Gilmore Girls, General Hospital, Greys Anatomy or any other dramatic series.
Can we just take this to its natural conclusion and have the entitled hippy arts majors come up with their interpretation of ww1 trench warfare? I took a lot of theater in school for fun (not allowed to double major) and saw all kinds of dumb takes but nothing on this level, I have no idea what bubble they’re finding these writers in.
The lead writer/producer for Discovery is also the same writer/producer of the last half of Voyager and parts of DS9. I swear, Paramount is the biggest reason you dislike so much of Discovery, not the actors/writers/producers.
These people are supposed to be trained professionals, serving in a military hierarchy and should, before they even graduate, be accustomed to the proper decorum and on duty-appropriate behavior for an officer.
If they are constantly involved in personal drama and unrelated problems it just feels like watching a therapy session in space. It’s probably exacerbated by the modern season length of a dozen episodes at best, but in the older trek they struck a much more palatable balance of personal issue / character episodes and more plot centric stories.
I think it’s no surprise that each Trek, through its own lens, shows us some vision of a possible future. ST:D just showed us a future where living life means dealing with the whole mind and not treating it like a taboo. Considering all the recent buzz about not neglecting mental health, I think ST:D was really relevant in its time for exploring what could be different in a better future. It’s not a documentary, it’s a vision.
Especially because it’s not a naming convention used for any other show: we don’t call Voyager ST:V, or Prodigy ST:P. The logical abbreviation is either DIS or DSC
I’ll be honest, the constant crying and sharing of emotions kinda takes me out of the action. It feels like some of the hyper-emotional scenes are in the wrong place at the wrong time and in the wrong measure. If these scenes were toned down from hyper-emotional to emotional and put in more appropriate places in their episodes, DSC would be a lot better for it.
I don’t want to sound like I’m hating on DSC. I think the show has some good bones and interesting concepts, but it’s a bit rough like a lot of series are in places (TNG s1…I’m looking at you). Really, if they had true 22-24 episode seasons and just the one series, we’d have LD and SNW-esque stories for DSC, and it wouldn’t feel like the red-headed step child series.
At least S1-3 had Michelle Yeoh for when you needed some asses to be kicked.
I’m on S4 now and honestly struggling to finish it. There’s nobody there I like. Everyone is just so fucking weepy all the time.
I just finished watching Succession (which I highly recommend), and I think you see somebody cry like three times across the whole show. When it happens it means something. In Discovery it’s like 3 times per episode. It’s exhausting. I don’t know who it’s even written for. I can only imagine this is what 60 year old studio executives think gen Z wants to watch.
Review: "Ran by a former male supermodel, doesnt know how to use the replicator and cooks all his food. Sometimes stops speaking in the middle of a sentence and starts beeping."
They didn’t have replicators by his time. I remember the TOS Enterprise had lots of pre-cooked meals on cargo, and preferring fresh stuff is perfectly reasonable.
Add comment