The Founder

Senior Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The Founder

  1. I agree with Sehlat Vie that this movie was fantastic and everyone did an amazing job - especially Sir Patrick. The man is amazing at acting and I felt genuinely down and sad when we saw what the great Professor X became. It actually makes me wish the scripts of the Trek movies were better because he goes above and beyond with the right material. I'm hoping this is the end for Stewart's Professor X and Jackman's Wolverine. I'm not saying that cause they're bad. Quite the opposite. They were amazing but this is a great end for them.
  2. Great choice. I thought someone else was going to be captain though ...
  3. Considering how much effort ENT put into explaining the Klingon appearance - I hope they won't do away with the "smooth" head Klingons. That these are just updated ones that look like Worf? Ugh. IDK.
  4. If one advocates for a non-interference policy 100% because it is natural and the universe should not be meddled with - then ... why bother advancing medicine? You're meddling with nature and don't know what the ramifications are to extend life. We're not "meant" to travel faster than light either. Technology allows us to transcend limitations that nature has placed upon us and others. Why hoard that only for us and not benefit others? Why - because they might turn into space-Nazis? They may also turn into space-Teslas too. I err on the side of life. Plus, I can't help but notice that the majority of the time it is the people who have the power that argue to leave the so-called less developed races to their own devices.**** I'd hate to be part of a primitive alien race that is dying from a disease that the Federation can easily cure with a pill (ala McCoy in Star Trek IV). In fact, I'd be bitter and angry if a so-called advanced alien culture could have saved mine from extinction because they believed it was the natural order of things for me to die. I'm a living, breathing sentient being that wants to live just as much as the "advanced" culture. Why is my life not worth saving? Because of cosmic circumstances put me on a world where we haven't figured out the complexities of warp drive and now my world will end because we did not make it in time for the UFP to talk to us? I just cannot fathom why this conversation is always reduced to a non-nuanced zero sum game. Both sides are right in their own way. If you have the power to stop an asteroid from slamming into a planet - do it. Any prospective species that may have arisen be damned. On the flip side - those primitive aliens you just save? The ones still struggling with their own bias/prejudice - let them solve their own problems. Do not drop warp technology on their heads to advance them prematurely. You've given them the opportunity to one day move past it. See how both sides can work? It's not one or the other .... **** Before anyone says "I'm sure indigenous people would be happy to have had the "advanced" people leave them to their own devices." - that is not the same thing. Because the interference there was destructive and genocidal.
  5. Sim is always dropping knowledge on us. :D As for the topic: I agree with those that say the Klingons/Dominion/etc. can't really offer the UFP any type of monetary reparations. As others stated - they can offer symbolic gestures or overtures of peace. However, couldn't they cede worlds to them? I'm pretty sure there is an implication that the UFP still needs resources but I could be wrong on that.
  6. Even though the transporter is "iconic" to Star Trek like the lightsaber is to Star Wars - this is why I am not a big fan of it (like a lot of Trek tech). It was constantly used as a quick plot device and then discarded later on. It can turn you younger. It can split you in two. It can divide your personality into an actual person. It can cause you to time travel. It can cause you to go into a "ghost" form. It can send you into another universe. Etc. etc. etc. Plus, from a writing stand point, it's a nightmare to have drama when you can easily just transport your people out of danger. It's why they constantly have to do the whole "I can't lock on to them" or "Shields were raised." or "That last hit knocked out our transporter." etc. I wish they simply used it in a single way that doesn't leave all these plot holes later on. As for the question - technically ... it could be used as a weapon. But I think the "larger" an object is the more power the transporter needs. So for example - I don't think the Enterprise can beam an entire building away from a city. Simply due to the fact that there is not enough space in the buffer. However, one could beam a chunk of the ship and cause "hull breaches" but that seems unnecessarily evil/pain/cruel for the Federation. Plus - you have to have perfect skill in locking on and then beaming the part of the ship you want to remove. When ships are zipping back and forth firing at each other - it's probably hard to do that. Plus, a lot of power is going to the shields and phasers. So there probably isn't enough power to mess with the transporter in such a specific way during that moment. I think a good question, though, is why is it not utilized when intruders are on board? Simply beam them directly into a holding cell...
  7. The reason I never had a problem with Archer being incompetent versus Janeway (for example) is because Archer is meant to make mistakes. His generation of captains are the reasons why our generation had all the rules. The dos and donts. It wouldn't make sense that Archer does everything right if he is the first to be out there for Starfleet. Now I do agree that ... he was made to be a bit too irrational. Making him captain was a dubious idea by Starfleet Command considering how emotional he behaved. But I guess it made sense that is why T'Pol was there.
  8. I thought that is what they were going to do. Have Jyn and Andor go from world to world recruiting the other characters, which allowed a little bit of development. That is probably one very minor change I think might've helped.
  9. It might help to think of these anthology villains as one shot villains (most of them at least). Think of it like the villains on all the Marvel Netflix shows. None of them will be shown to over power Thanos or most of the Marvel movie villains. They simply won't. Whoever the villain is in the upcoming Han Solo film will unlikely unseat Jabba the Hutt or Boba Fett as Solo's primary antagonists ... Darth Vader's ending time in Rogue One was so amazing that he made Darth Maul look cartoonish.
  10. Krennic should not have been an over powering presence to Darth Vader or Tarkin. Or even on a par with them. If he seemed more menacing than those two - then it would diminish their presence in the OT. He wasn't meant to be another Vader/Tarkin /Palpatine anyways. He was a greedy opportunist that wanted to advance his career by any means necessary. That's it. His intimidating stature comes from the death squad he surrounds himself with. Like Jabba and his bounty hunters.
  11. Hey Robin - same to you. I didn't mean to imply my post was criticizing your specific post. The timing was bad. haha. Sorry about that. I was talking in general in regards to Erso. In my opinion, I'm not really sure what else could have been established in her background. I think the movie was so fast-paced and fighting hard to get us to the beginning of Episode IV that what you are looking for with Andor and Erso kind of was put to the way side. They gave us enough to give them the story and propelled us to the Death Star plans. You also brought up something I forgot to mention - am I the only one that wasn't really convinced by the "romance" between the two? This was a movie that probably could have gotten away with zero romance. I was pretty surprised when they were on the left heading down to the beach that they looked at each other lovingly. Nothing else in the movie really hinted they felt that way about each other.
  12. I think this is a movie that will be better appreciated by fans that like a lot of the side-materials. The books and the games specifically - not just the cartoons. I grew up reading a lot of the Expanded Universe so I appreciated little side stories that weren't about the Force or massive cosmic battles. Rather it was showing a small but cool piece of a much larger puzzle. That is what this movie was meant to be - nothing more. I don't know how much more back story could have been given to Erso or Andor. Jyn is the daughter of an Imperial scientist that grew up with terrorists until she was abandoned. She is then swept on a mission that reunites her with her father and thus the mission. What more is there supposed to be with that? That is more development than most movie characters get.... I do wish that Donnie Yen's character had a bit more development rather than just being along for the ride. Mostly because his character intrigued me so much. But I liked what we saw of him and I like the idea that normal, non-Jedi "worship" the Force. I believe the elderly character that gives Poe Dameron that map to Luke Skywalker is also another non-Jedi that worships the Force too. I wonder if there is any connection ... The only aspect I find fishy because of this new canon is that Leia tells Vader in episode 4 that she is on a diplomatic mission to Alderaan. Even though, he clearly sees her ship was at the last battle. Seems like a flimsy excuse on her part. Although, there are tons of Corellian Corvettes in the fleet. I suppose if he did say he saw her ship, she could simply say it was another one? IDK. A very minor nitpick.
  13. Star Wars' focus wasn't about the Force. It was about good vs. evil. Lucas' simplicity, for once, worked in shaping an entire franchise. Light vs. dark. Jedi vs. Sith. Rebel vs. Empire. Plus, most of us are burnt out on Jedi and Sith after the PT. It's nice to an entire universe exists where the Jedi/Sith/Force are not at the fore front. Like ANH was. It makes the Force feel special, rather than some mundane thing. Jedi were once again remembered as almost a mythical group rather than the third branch of the Republic. Plus - you'll get plenty of Force with episode 8 and 9.
  14. A lot of non-Jedi refer to the Force in the OT. Leia, Jan Dodana, and Mon Mothma all say "May the Force be with you." Han says it to Luke too. It's just a common saying in this galaxy. It has nothing to do with being a Jedi. Believing in the Force has no relevance to siding with the Rebel Alliance.
  15. ^ This was close to my initial reaction too. And yes, I liked the eastern Shinto-Buddhist feel of the force religion in this movie; no super-choreographed lightsaber fights, no telekinesis. More about faith and resilience. Personally I think it was more interesting than super-humans whirling and twirling like Cirque de Soleil performers. Exactly what I loved about it too. The Force felt like a religion again. Harkening back to that admiral that dismiss Vader's "sad devotion to that ancient religion". The PT made the Jedi Order feel like the third branch of the Republic government. So dry and boring and only practitioners of the Force were part of it. It felt like an organization rather than a religion that anyone, Force users and non-Force users alike, could follow.
  16. This movie was....simply....amazing. It's what I wanted since the disaster that was the PT. It made the Jedi feel like an ancient myth again. It made the war feel gritty again. The Clone Wars was quite literally a cartoon war of robots and clones. The cameos were amazing. I would honestly recommend watching Episode 4 to be able to catch them all. That ending ... I'm still speechless.
  17. I don't think this will hold a candle to the Fraser version ... however ... I am intrigued that they are doing a shared universe with the classic Universal monsters.
  18. Do you feel the show found back to old glory with season 6? Have to say, I didn't notice any drop in quality... but then, we binge watched seasons 2 to 6 within 5 weeks or so, and I hardly noticed when one season ended and the next began. Yes, I think season 6 picked up a bit where season 5 dropped. Season 5 is the first real season without the books as a guide line as they've reached the point where GRRM had written thus far. So you could tell that having to condense plot lines and make some stuff up as they go was not...HBO's forte. The Dorne plot line was completely ruined compared to the books. I think it's more the book snob in me that found the quality to dip. Yes, I agree -- I don't know why that is, but fantasy worlds full of magic make me feel bored. I just stop caring. But GoT wisely uses these elements moderately, and many of those are just as magical for the characters as for the viewer, so it really works for me. Probably because most fantasy worlds are .... black and white. The shining warrior knight will always defeat the "dark lord" type theme. Plus, with magic, it seems a lot easier to defeat the enemy. The stakes are so low because you know who it will end. Or maybe it's just not your thing. haha. Agreed. I actually enjoy the subdued magic use. Which is why when the characters are in awe of it - it feels genuine. I honestly cannot fathom where these accusations stem from. Or, well I can, but don't want to, because that makes me angry. IMO, there is nothing wrong with depicting individual tribes with certain ethnic characteristics, when that's in a pre-industrialized setting (even when that's fictional) -- you can't expect an ethnically mixed society in such a world. Within the constraints of this basic assumption, the show even manages to avoid too stereotypical depictions for non-white ethnicities, IMO. The first black guy I remember was a pirate, but he was not depicted any more sinister than most characters on the show. Even slightly leaning to the positive, as he agreed fighting for the "good side" IIRC, even if that was just for the money. And with Daenerys' advisor -- and some of her elite troops --, there are quite a few sympathetic, "good" black characters. The Khal's hoarde is somewhat Middle Eastern/Mongolian, but albeit they are barbarians and very rough, it would be a stretch calling them "evil" per se. Khal Drogo, for example, may have been a misogynist who had no concept of sexuality that didn't include rape, but even he developed a loving, caring affection for Daenerys. And his people? Well, they're just people. They may be primitive, but not "evil" in the same sense, say, Joffrey was depicted as evil -- cruel and sadist for the sake of it. And you have sympathetic and less sympathetic Middle Eastern/Mediterranean types in that city with Alexander Siddig (sorry, forgot the name), who are not worse or better than the other kingdoms. And with that gay king who got killed by his own brother via fire magic, and the later religious persecution of his lover, you even got a thinly veiled approving statement in favor of homosexual hedonism, at least in contrast with the religious inquisition (I don't want to imagine a viewer who might possibly view these religious folks on King's Landing as a positive force ). Well, I've always found the charges of racism funny because the argument is essentially "The non-Euro characters are depicted as "primitive" and evil." While what? The Euro-looking characters are depicted as good? They're depicted as baby killing, rapist, incestuous, murderous, torturous, disloyal, treacherous, and willing to kill millions so some ponce perfume lord can sit on an iron chair. In what way are the Westerosi characters depicted as "good"? For every one or two good characters (Jon Snow or Ned Stark) - you have legions of bad ones. Even the funny ones like Bronn are morally grey and willing to kill babies for a price ... As for "primitive"? - the Westerosi don't seem particularly advanced. Plus they have the "Wildlings" to the North that are "primitive". Plus, the cultures of Essos are based off of real-life cultures. The Dothraki are clearly Mongolians with a hint of Native American. The Braavosi seem Sicilian (mixed with a bit of Spaniard). The Valyrians seem like they were Roman (their civilization was destroyed like Pompeii). Etc. In the books, there is an Asian/African culture as well. The civilization Dany conquered - Mereen - seems to be a mix of Egyptian and other North African cultures with the "Great Pyramids of Mereen" and so forth. Both the West and the East of this world are depicted as "brutal" and savage and heartless. The kingdom you're talking about with Alexander Siddig (Doran Martell) is Dorne. That is actually a Westerosi culture. It looks "different" from the conventional European one because an ancient culture from Essos mixed with them and changed the way they look. They're an analog to Spain under Muslim rule. While I definitely don't think there was overt homophobia, but I do think they dropped the ball a bit with Renly. In the books - he is gay - but he is not depicted as he is in the show. In the show, he is depicted as slightly over emotional and trembles at the sight of a little blood. In the books - he loves hunting and is barely any different from Robert. Yes! It's immensely beneficial for the tension, when you really don't know if a main character will survive or not. And so far, they did it in a really convincing manner, IMO. I couldn't believe it when they killed off John Snow ... and was somewhat relieved when they resurrected him short after. Part of me thinks that was playing with the audience a tad too much, but then, it was really wonderfully done, and surprisingly didn't feel forced at all, so I don't mind. Right. The Red Wedding must've been insane for you. haha. I knew of it because of the books, but I wish I hadn't. I think seeing it onscreen without knowing about it would've been...amazing! Yeah, I'd love if DSC turns out to show a similar degree of "realism" -- but it shouldn't necessarily be "darker", IMO. DS9-levels of dark are totally sufficient. At any rate, I'd hope for a modern Star Trek show to give deeper explanations for the characters and their motivations, than just "they're Starfleet officers strifing for improving themselves and mankind". More shades of grey would be very welcome, too. But I wouldn't want to miss the typical optimism. Even when things are tough and characters fail, there should always be that glimmer of hope on the horizon. IMO. Oh for sure. I meant more the serious tone of it. Like the stakes are high and the production values too.
  19. I love Game of Thrones (although season 5 took a dip in quality). I personally enjoy High Fantasy but I do like that Game of Thrones subverts all the usual tropes and makes magic a "wondrous" thing rather than a common place one. Which is why I was in awe at the Battle of Hardhome. If battles like that were common place - I probably wouldn't have been as in awe. You have a very interesting analysis. I think the criticisms are largely ignorant, for lack of a more polite word. The show has also been accused of racism... I like Game of Thrones in the sense that the world is far more gritty and "realistic" (I use this word knowing how much of a stretch it is here). I like the analogies to real life historical events. Most of all? I like that they kill off main characters. The death of *that* character in season 1 was not just for shock value but it set off the rest of the story ... I feel like GoT proves that fantasy (and sci-fi) can be used in a dark, serious way. I'd love for a Trek show to be like this (minus the sex as it would be odd to have that in Trek haha)
  20. So the idea of a connected universe has obviously caught on thanks to Marvel. Now DC and Star Wars are slowly following suit. But what about Star Trek? Can such a thing be feasible? What do you all think? I personally love this idea because I feel it be a way to make everyone happy. One movie can be purely cerebral, one can be an espionage (S31) type thing, one can focus on aliens (maybe some type of Guardians of the Galaxy thing in Trek), etc. Trek as a universe has too much potential to be constantly wasted on focusing on Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise. Warning: There is an annoying video mixed into this article. Star Trek cinematic universe
  21. I thought DofP was the soft reboot?
  22. Maybe Discovery can give that push? In terms of the movies - I think they'll be as ready as they'll ever be.
  23. lol!!! My sentiments exactly.