Latest Mission Log
Latest Gene-ology
Latest Supplemental
Latest Live Show
Latest "Prodigy"
Latest "The Orville"
Supplemental
033
Roddenberry Podcast Network at the Disco
On this supplemental edition of Mission Log, John and Ken formally introduce you to Women at Warp and Priority One – founding members of the Roddenberry Podcast Network. Plus everybody goes to the Disco, which Ken INSISTS is short for Discovery. Members of all three podcasts discuss the trailer for Star Trek Discovery. All of that and listener feedback, too!
Only just downloaded this podcast and really looking forward to hearing you all talk as a group. Been listening to missionlog since episode 1 and the new “family” for a few weeks now and have loved what I’ve heard so far. Great idea for a supplemental. Thanks folks. Tx
Thank you, Terry! And glad you have stuck with us!
Thank you for giving us a shot!! I’m thrilled you’ve enjoyed what you’ve heard 🙂
You’re right when you say we get very little from the trailer. We don’t have some of the main cast OR ‘Discovery’ yet. We don’t know if these Klingons are the main Klingons or some off-shoot/flashback whatever. Personally, you could give me the Michelle Yeoh & USS Shenzhou show and I’d be a happy Trekkie, but we don’t know whether Yeoh’s Captain Georgiou (and I happen to love her accent!!!!) is going to get zapped in episode three (please don’t) or whether she’ll keep showing up. [btw, Jason Isaacs turned in a fine performance in the otherwise dreary ‘A Cure for Wellness,’ so I’m pleased he’s coming aboard.] SO… while I love this podcast, we cannot at this time get the answers we want. Oh, and that includes when the $%*%in’ series is going to premiere!!!
Disco…Discovery…you know, a lively repaint of the saucer section and I think we can make this work.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0b0b351f0226257e5b6cf9584a2b59c0a218f39a1663eab5c12d65b14c7a59f2.jpg
Well, that’s my headcanon, at any rate.
We’d watch that show.
Maybe I’m giving the producers too much credit, but could the Klingons in the trailer be in an intermediate state between the Klingons who contracted the virus (or whatever it was) in Enterprise and the Klingons in TOS?
Too much credit…I think they are just going for a slightly different look to …be different. The incongruous, inconsistent issues that just plague any pre quell , ret con madness imo.
I never understood the need to explain the change to begin with. Were fans ever really clamoring for one?
the change in Klingon appearance? from TOS to TMP? I assumed it was just because they had a bigger budget and Star Wars made them up their game….
Any of them. Why not take an episode to explain the exact reasons for changing the space pyjamas to unitards and then back to space pyjamas? Or why the TOS bridge had a high-pitched whirring sound, but TNG’s didn’t? Or why Sarek looks so much like the Romulan Commander from “Balance of Terror”?
We need answers NOW! Preferably in a really complicated fashion that takes up an entire episode.
The real answer is, production values change, audience expectations evolve.
Sure, but improved special effects and costumes don’t need in-universe explanations, so why does makeup?
I think because it was a fundamental physical or evolutionary change to the appearance of people, versus reasonably expected advances in technology. But, I just really think they had more money and needed to be on par w “Star Wars”- the Mos Eisley cantina band scene blew away a lot of sci fi make artist guys expectations I guess?
I think the Klingon appearance also could have just been ignored, but DS9 chose to tackle it in a tongue in cheek way I think…. yeah, the actors playing multiple roles could always be a bit annoying/silly, but hey, a guy’s/gal’s gotta work! lol.
I’ll repeat something I’ve tweeted since the day the trailer premiered at the CBS upfront: it’s a trailer. We still know nothing. I’m waiting for an actual show to pass judgement.
The Klingon sarcophagus thing – doesn’t Spock’s pop quiz in Star Trek IV mention a Klingon mummification glyph or somesuch? So, putting Klingons and mummification in the same column = not a new thing.
If no reason for the Klingons’ appearance is given on screen, one will be invented by the fans. Maybe I’m in the minority, but I loved Worf’s “we do not talk about it” line in the DS9 Tribble episode, and would’ve been okay with that being the last word; Enterprise’s explanation for the change was fun, but not entirely necessary.
Trek fandom is at its best when it embraces a bit of retconning as a creative exercise, and it’s at its worst when it’s rigid and closed-minded, which is a mindset that flies in the face of the IDIC philosophy. It’s interesting to note the differences between this decade-long gap in live-action Trek vs. the last one, between the end of TOS and the premiere of The Motion Picture. So much of what Trek is now was invented, by the fans, out of whole cloth in that 1969-79 gap, along with a lot of fan culture, including conventions devoted to a particular property. A lot of good has come out of the most recent doldrums as well, such as the fan film phenomenon, but it’s also seemed – and I really kind find a better word for this – a b*tchier gap this time than it was last time. The internet is really good at breeding snark…and that doesn’t really befit Trek fandom either.
We’ve even had worse off-screen drama than this – has everyone forgotten the whole Genevieve Bujold thing?
I am excited that Star Trek is coming back. I don’t think I have to go into too many specifics as to why the Trek message of inclusion and equality is more necessary now than it has been in the past 40 years. As long as that message is intact in Discovery, I can forgive an awful lot of changes – uniforms, delta badges, ship designs, Klingons, and all.
I also wish CBS would see the wisdom in actually airing the show, not just relegating it to a streaming service behind a paywall. The audience members who have the most to gain from seeing themselves represented on screen aren’t always the ones who can afford to plunk down for CBS All Access. At least the aforementioned fan films are free to anyone who can access Youtube.
Agree w the paywall. I think resistance to retconning comes from what imo was the abysmal Star Wars Episodes I-III debacle and the utterly incongruous appearance of Star Trek Enterprise. Was Archer eeevvvver mentioned before? I heard of Captain April in some books, but anyway, the retconning prequel, cramming stuff in between the cracks method of storytelling has not gone well imo. Star Trek is about the future!! From what we know of 1701-D lore, Starfleet survives and thrives and makes it to fight the Cardassians, Borg and Dominion. To expect existential threats to Starfleet/UFP in Star Trek: Discovery will not happen. We know what will happen! Big bummer! I want Star Trek to move forward. I wanted a Starfleet Academy show 2-3 years after DS9/VOY to rebuild the fleet after the Dominion War…. I hope this show is good. As in DS9 7 year big vision/story arc good. The messages of Trek are timeless, we just need writers and producers willing to tackle the tough issues….for great storytelling.
As long as the characters and the stories matter, and that message of hope is there, that matters more to me than the design of the ships, the tech, the uniforms, etc.
I can appreciate wanting to move forward in the timeline, but at the same time I can appreciate the school of thought that the further future stories relate less and less to where we are now – the 24th century seems awfully cushy. Sisko tells his son, in the pilot of DS9, that they’ll be “roughing it” – but to Ben Sisko, “roughing it” means we don’t have a mattress or a working replicator in our quarters on a space station that’s reliably pressurized with the correct atmosphere, and still has facilities for acquiring food, probably still from a magical mini-transporter built into a wall somewhere. Is that what you or I relate to as “roughing it”? Don’t get me wrong, I loved the look-and-feel of the 24th century – PADDs and Okudagrams, touchscreens everywhere in the universe…but that’s me as a fan. I accept from a business standpoint that the studio has to look outside of fandom to grow the show’s audience, but with that comes the ability to spread Trek’s message to a new audience as well, which may be the real win condition for Discovery.
There are plenty of shows, from The Walking Dead to the nightly news, telling us human beings are raging tire fires on two legs. Discovery has to sell the Star Trek message into *that* audience, not to you and me.
I recall rumors of an anthology type Trek show where locales would change from starship to space station to terraforming to Earth to Vulcan etc… I really would like some “roughing it” terraforming colony type stuff or even post crash survival/ like Tom Hanks in “Castaway”- that would be really cool imo.
Welcome to the other podcasts on the growing Roddenberry network.
As to the Discovery trailer, it is just fine. The issue I have with it is that I don’t get any “Star Trek” feel to it, (what ever that is). It just looks like any other SciFi trailer out there. I watch it and I just don’t get any special excitement.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c6833585077dfe1b0766dcf45e5e59d3cee3983509da1cb6bd1a7a4cc5220238.jpg
Is new alien on Star Trek Discovery a nod to The Animated Series’ “Lieutenant Arex” Edosian or Triexian?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7c6fa5fae74084cb4c7c6311a356136cda7089ba8d31645cbe6f23c2a370ca63.jpg
Doug Jones is my biggest “in” for DISCO. DS9 made great use of cult/genre actors in flashy roles, and I’m hoping the new showrunners chose him because they wanted someone who can do truly weird, and that they’ll write him accordingly.
At the very, very least, he could be the show’s Phlox.
googling “Doug Jones”….
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7b288b95538ecd429c2c2b2261e9402a4e6dc299a67fce0107830a607c2fbc25.jpg
Chinese satellite “Shenzhou” – “Divine State” First launched 1999. Ongoing series of satellites, on “Shenzhou 11” as of 2016
Looking forward to checking out Women at Warp and Priority One. I think Ken had the same question about Star Trek Online that I have and I’m not sure we got a clear answer on it. Are the stories truly “Star Trek”… as in do they mean something and do they teach us anything, or are they typical video game excuses to go around shooting things. I’ve been intrigued with the idea of an MMORPG Star Trek and tried out Star Trek Online when it first came out. My initial impression was you run around shooting a lot of things and that it wasn’t -my- idea of what Star Trek was. I’d be interested to know if it’s developed into something worth checking out.
Hi Gizmochimp! Sure, some of missions in Star Trek Online are a bit basic and traditional to MMO and video game standards. However, the special Featured Episodes (the dozens of them) really tell a wonderful story in the same way we all enjoyed to experience on the small screen. Sela’s story – for one instance – is a very dramatic journey that hits on several themes.
Very cool! I might check it out, thanks.
I’m not a PC gamer. I was surprised to hear of PS4 option. I have listened to ST:O vids on youtube while doing stuff around the house….cool to hear some new material.
So I now have more Trek podcasts to listen too now!!! I’ll have no time for living at this rate!!!
With regards to Disco (!!!!) I’m looking forward to new Trek on the small screen I just wish it had been set between TOS & TNG. A time that has yet to be really looked at in cinematic/televisual media.
The Bechdel test (/ˈbɛkdəl/ BEK-dəl) asks whether a work of fiction features at least two women or girls who talk to each other about something other than a man or boy. The requirement that the two women or girls must be named is sometimes added.
About half of all films meet these requirements, according to user-edited databases and the media industry press. The test is used as an indicator for the active presence of women in films and other fiction, and to call attention to gender inequality in fiction.
Also known as the Bechdel–Wallace test,[1] the test is named after the American cartoonist Alison Bechdel, in whose comic strip Dykes to Watch Out For it first appeared in 1985. Bechdel credited the idea to a friend, Liz Wallace, and to the writings of Virginia Woolf. After the test became more widely discussed in the 2000s, a number of variants and tests inspired by it have been introduced.
The Bechdel test is idiotic at best, that anyone still think it is a good measure of anything says quite a bit about a person’s mentality.
Well, I never heard of it before the podcast…interesting, but hey, different perspectives…
Most pornos meet the those requirements. The point of the test is to claim that media is sexist and such. Porno is considered sexist regardless by most people who subscribe to it in some way. That the majority of the thing that is considered sexist regardless passes the test so much shows that is nonsense ^.^ it also likewise does not take into account the opposite which to define things as sexist you’d think they’d include but they don’t v.v
It’s less interesting if you’ve heard about it and it’s brought up all the time for years now.
Also, Sweden, i think, now has movies rated according to the bechdel test if you’re interested. I don’t know if it’s official rating or what. I didn’t follow that story to care, but it’s an interesting factoid ^.^
lol, porn….hmmmm yeah, I know the movies, Oscars/Academy types are trying to meet some goals there. Sweden doesn’t surprise me. They hype about “Wonder Woman” currently…but dang, there just aren’t a lot of comic females out there that come to mind for a feature length. I think w good writing, some 2nd or 3rd string female characters could shine like “Guardians of the Galaxy” surprised many. Hmmmmm, Black Widow, MCU Elektra…She-Hulk…Dark Phoenix, Jocasta…lol.
Stephanie Brown, Black Alice (Possibly the most powerful character in DC), Misfit, Harley Quinn, Cassandra Cane, Kathy Kane, Catwoman, Barbara Gordon, Tris Plover (though she is very obscure, it’d make a great movie), Supergirl, Wondergirl, Power Girl, Voodoo, Black Canary, Huntress, Renee Montoya, Starfire, Rose Wilson, Katana, Dove, Spider Women, Spider Gwen, Jubilee, Rogue, Psylocke, Storm… To name a few…
None of these are “Second String” characters in anything other than DC pretty much goes Batman > Green Lantern > Superman > Wonder Women > Every one else which kinda weird cuz Wonder Woman has never sold well and reboots all the time because of it. Barbara Gordon is the true top woman in DC ^.^ and she was considered more important than “top characters” until New52 where they broke her character v.v And Marvel just makes teams rather than solo works so there are a lot of female characters tied up in that. But yeah, the reason you get no “female solo movies” is simply they are making top draw movies and the top draws are either male or team characters… We are now just barely getting out of testing the waters stage where they only throw the top stuff or absolute garbage at you because that’s the only stuff that can recover or doesn’t matter if it will recover.
Imagine if they put out a Wonder Woman film like Batman and Robin. Do you think they could have made another within within a decade? I don’t think so. Or what about a Spiderman 3, TAS 1 & 2, do you think Wonder Woman could have a run like that and still get movies made? It’s highly unlikely. So she, as well as many other characters are in the limbo of too precious to just throw out there but too weak to take a flop.
lol…well guess it’s subjective…I thought of Avengers, X-Men, Fantastic Four as first string, Defenders, Inhumans 2nd, Guardians of the Galaxy as 3rd..but that’s just me in terms of my perceptions/comic popularity among my friends when we were kids….I honestly just didn’t value or hold in high regard many titles w female leads….but I am glad Wonder Woman is doing well and she is imo wayyyyy above the pack of any female comic book leads. She is an anomaly, but a fantastic one that I really like. Spider Woman, She-Hulk, Batgirl/woman, just seemed like copy cats….lol. no pun intended….great points though!
Spider Woman from the Ultimates isn’t a copy cat, she is a clone of Peter Parker who’s had her chromosomes altered to female.
She-Hulk is Hulk’s cousin and while she has a similar set-up for powers, she is completely different in characters, comics etc.
Batwoman to a certain degree is a copycat. The first one did it to get close to Batman. The second one was inspired by Batman. (The first incarnation of the second one I like, the 2nd incarnation though I despise)
Almost none of the Batgirls are any where near a copycat of Batman. Barbara is mostly just pulling a prank and get’s pulled into it unlike Batman. Helena is similar to Batman, but her motives are all together different. Cassie is somewhat the opposite of Batman. Stephanie has nothing in common with Batman and becomes Batgirl as a matter of honor and respect.
You might think of them as “copy cats” but they’re not. They have similar themes because they work with each other, paying homage, are brought into a group, are related, or are in fact the “same” person
And like I said, it’s a matter of how these companies push the various products that makes you think they’re lower tier or higher tier mostly. Wonder Woman has almost always been outshone by Barbara Gordon. Wonder Woman was literally part of the Justice League because her books were under performing and then to keep at least 1 woman on the team. Once they got to the point where they came up with the idea of the Trinity Barbara Gordon had been created, but they couldn’t Batgirl there because it wouldn’t look or feel right, even though if your talking sales and popularity and even iconography and symbols Barbara Gordon was always head and shoulders above Wonder Woman. I’ve heard the new WW movie is good and if that is the case then this will mark the first time WW has ever outshone Batgirl in an area.
Mind you WW isn’t a bad character and most of the problem with her is in the fact that DC treats her much like they treat Dick Grayson. Every new writer or editor ends up with a reboot of her character. So long as that happens people will never char about her. It the same reason all the reboots are not liked in general with the entire company. It’s them throwing stuff out and there is a constant risk of that happens so you never let you get attached to the character very much resulting in eventually people put her down,
Just saw the movie Sunday night…I enjoyed it, – won’t type any feedback critique because I don’t wanna spoil/taint….Spiderwoman not a copycat ? but a clone of Peter Parker? hmmm sounds like a copy cat to me, but anyway, I was thinking of Jessica Drew from the 80s? But dang, I am sure Ultimates and 52 etc type re-boots/resets have scrambled the characters a bit from what I recall….duh, I know they have…anyway conceptually, just wayyyyyy to many similarities w the main guys and some support gals. I am just hoping for a good show, realistic command structure/decision making/support crew. Couple of good fight scenes don’t hurt…..hahaha….and of course tackle some relevant social issues.
“We want as many voices as possible” and all you presented here are feminists. It’d be nice if you got non-feminists on here as well.
As far as Star Trek Discovery. I will be calling it ST:D. It looks ok if it wasn’t Star Trek. I want more Star Trek, not whatever that is that obviously doesn’t care about any of the lore or the universe, just like so many other franchises that people have pushed their “standards” on which generally ended up as garbage and killed the IP.
The Orville on the other hand looks great and I’m looking forward to watching that.
Maybe they should invite racists on while they’re at it.
Well that’s you’re problem, because any intelligent person who even remotely thinks for half a second can see that feminism is sexist on its face, simply by the word, ignoring the history of feminism.
When you take into account the history of feminism it is classist, racist, sexist, terroristic, among other things. So, in fact, they did invite on racists, while I am telling them to stop being racist/sexist and actually bring on conflicting opinions.
But hey, even if it were the case that i was wrong here, which I’m not, the whole point of Star Trek and it’s philosophy is to discuss with conflicting points of view, such as racists, sexists, classists, communists, fascists, etc. and to discuss and try overcome them. So your statement, and their lack of doing exactly that, is anti-thetical to what Star Trek and they are doing… more over, you can see this with all feminist things. “We want diversity which doesn’t include you and if you disagree with us your x.” That’s just garbage, hypocritical, and is tearing apart civilization. But do go on… I’m sure no matter what is said you’ll continue to believe that the group that prattles on about being inclusive and making words be neutral so they don’t offend which is also the group that also shows to be the least inclusive, most divisive, most exclusionary, and most unwilling to make their self label neatral is about equal rights…especially given that the foundation of feminism rests on “judging a society by how well women are doing” like that couldn’t be supremecist at all v.v
You’re supposed to listen and think, not spout ideogical dogma.
Really? ‘Cause the reactionary garbage you just spouted sure sounds like ideological dogma to me.
Wow, reactionary? That’s not reactionary. That’s reality, and even if it is “reactionary” to say that is meaningless. Everything is a reaction to something else. Try to respond with some content next time.
When you call the Women at Warp podcasters racist with nothing to back that up, it seems fairly clear that you’re too far gone to try to have any kind of rational discussion. I knew it was probably a mistake to respond directly to you- it seemed a foregone conclusion I was going to get this kind of hostile reaction. But your insistence that they needed to have “anti-feminists” to represent your point of view was so ludicrous, I couldn’t help myself. Reading your angry rant only makes me less inclined to see what good could possibly come of inviting someone on with such an antagonistic attitude.
Feminism concerns equality of the sexes. Period. If you don’t agree with that, then I have no problem calling you a sexist. Maybe there are some feminists who make other feminists look bad (especially to nutjob right wingers who are predisposed to be against feminism in the first place), just like there may be some a-hole Star Trek fans and depictions of Star Trek fans in the media that make Trekkies look bad, but I’m not going to stop calling myself a Trekkie because of that.
“When you call the Women at Warp podcasters racist with nothing to back that up,” I didn’t but they likely are, just you likely are. You just don’t realize it because you have decided that racism isn’t racism as long as it is directed at one particular group… which is racist in itself…
“Feminism concerns equality of the sexes. Period. If you don’t agree with that, then I have no problem calling you a sexist.”
That’s why Feminists promoted upper class white women getting the ability to cast a vote disentangled from basic requirements of owning land or military service while there was another movement to get everyone the right to vote disentangled from those things. That’s why feminist still persist in having abuse shelters for women, but none for men. That’s why feminists promoted and got past legislation which causes when men call for help from police when their wives are beating on them they are likely to go to jail. That is why women serve lesser sentences. etc etc etc.
You are so ideologically dogmatic that you think “if you don’t agree with my nonsense definition that doesn’t contort with reality you are a sexist” even though whether I believe it or not has nothing to do has nothing to do with how I treat anyone, other than you and those who hold the same nonsensical belief.
Think about what you said. “You don’t agree with me and that is why people who don’t agree with me shouldn’t be invited” What a joke v.v So rational and clear thinking you are.
The episode “Angel One” is coming to mind….lol…yeah, I guess in our reality women have some catch up to do, but on Angel One, it was reversed…perspective is key, but hey I think if “Women on Warp” gets people, guys or girls to examine, reflect and enjoy Star Trek, while maybe even bringing others into the club, it’s a good thing….
I think the premise was that most Trek sci fi podcasts are by dudes. Anyway, this kinda reminded me of whenever I/we would hear female voices on Socom II, PS2 online or still now on GTA V PS4….it’s always a bit surprising/refreshing to know women game. I think their perspective is interesting, but the reality behind the scenes of producers cranking out a show w target audience of males 18-35 will invariably slant things imo. Example Troi’s cleavage, Seven of NIne, T’Pol etc…Hoshi Satos Mirror Universe…damn! lol-
Most podcasts are by males, because generally speaking more males are risk takers. Women can put out more podcasts if they wanted to. They just don’t. Women get less backlash, have an easier time gaining an audience, and have generally more time free. And apparently, what few there are, aren’t really there for Star Trek. They’re using Star Trek to push feminism. it’s a disgusting behavior which I abhor, especially since it has become so apparent and has repeated and destroyed or degraded so much already that I find enjoyable.
To be clear, I’m not talking about “oh something that relates here with x while we’re talking about y so we’ll talk about x” like this podcast does, but rather “We’re interested in x so we’ll talk about y so we can leech off that to promote x.”
It’s a behavior that feminists have shown to do across the board and so what you end up with is not a podcast or whatever with “as many voices as possible” but rather a homogenous set of views pushed pretending to be interested in the topic that you’re actually there to be talking about which is usually misinterpreted and taken all out of context, which is also why, what’s her name brought up that argument about viewer Hermeneudics. It’s the only way they have to even remotely defend their behavior, and even then it’s dishonest as they presume that it is not only a valid lense to look through, but the only lense to look through… It doesn’t even qualify for being a valid lense, because it’s presupposes things that are just factually wrong v.v
And worst still is those people are the ones who freaking scare other non-crazy people away from speaking through a number of ways v.v So, even if you’re goal is just “more women” promoting these people goes against what you’re trying to do.
Oh also… the whole “sexualization of women” thing for Star Trek is nonsense. Sci-Fiction has a long standing ethos of sexual maturity and appreciation which respects the male and female form and mind simultaneously. Most sci-fi. It is the prudeness of average modern society, which feminists represent one side of, that keeps all the characters dressed to begin with. True Sci-fi would have just about every character always or almost always naked and be much more like Lwaxana Troi with regards to clothing and sexuality. The Target audiences in theory are sci-fi nerds who read sci-fi who already appreciate this fact and so would everyone else if Hollywood would follow through. The prudish attitudes propegate themselves as do the mature attitudes. When people complain and point that out, all they are doing is pointing out that they are not mature nor is the show, otherwise they’d go “oh that character must just like dressing like that for whatever reason” and respect them, but they don’t.
And the whole “ceavage” and “form fitting” suits thing is even more trite nonsense when you look at what women generally wear of their own accord and why. It’s idiotic to argue that beautiful women wouldn’t wear as sexually appealing clothes as they can get away with when that’s what they do now. It’s a disconnect from reality and thinking. If feminists can’t appreciate that then what does that say about them? More so if what they are saying is correct and what you’re saying is correct, then it is a expression of male sexuality and again, what does that say about feminists? That they can’t respect male sexuality or it’s expression. And if that’s the case then it’s just another reason you might not see podcasts hosted by women, if they are all feminists, like some people like to believe, despite data showing otherwise…
Well, I love cleavage as much as the next guy, but it seemed a tad unrealistic for the quasi military organization that Starfleet is to have differing uniforms for the hot chicks… remember I am talking about uniform standards. Also, just dumping Kes the nerd for Seven the hottie seemed rather obvious. I think what would be cool is perspectives on Trek from around the globe, seeing how citizens living under different types of govts view a Trek “Utopia” or future…. I dig how Troi and Riker had an open relationship…really liked the previous comments on “Clues” when someone here mentioned “what if?” Ro and Troi were down for a threesome w Riker…hahaha, good stuff, good discussion….
T’pol, Kira, Seven, Kes, Troi, and Crusher are all special positions and such all for most of their run had different outfits. Notice everyone else fell within the specs who were not special positions…
Also Kes is just a bad character. They dropped her because she had no way to grow any further and they had already set it up that she shouldn’t even live for the average length of ST TV show runs so getting rid of her was inevitable. Seven being hot is a plus, but it more just happened to line up with Kes being removed anyways. It wasn’t a “replacement” as many like to think.
But here’s the thing, Seven is a great character. Without her being hot you lose a few attributes that help that character be put in some great scenarios. She is intelligent, her characters grows, she challenges everything around her making the show overall better by making the other think and letting the writers answer “yeah why are things like that!” Her character tackles prejudice on several fronts. You really can go on and on about her character that when you compare her to just about any other character, especially Kes, she stands as one of the best, far better than Spock who wrestled with a subset of the same problems. But what do her detractors and even most of her fans say? “she’s just eye candy” Yet on every level her character from head to toe was the right choice. That says more about those people who think that way and how they judge beautiful strong women, than it does people who wrote or actually appreciate her as a character and give her the due respect.
How she falls for Chakotay, one of the worst characters in ST history is beyond me v.v
Well the one for one exchange from Kes to 7 was always suspect imo. The short lifespan of Kes had some plan before the ratings considerations to bring 7 in…they should have gone through with it…let her die, get us sad etc….follow through. Anyway, guess we’ll see about the hot chick uniform thing w STD, but so far it seems consistent…..
7 of 9 in Voyager as played by Jeri Ryan is a great character, well acted as well. I particularly enjoyed the episodes with her and Robert Picardos The Doctor as they had great chemistry together, and the two characters were very much alike in their trying to fit into humanity and the crew.
Indeed, unfortunately, that whole “She’s just there for sex appeal” thing takes away from her and causes Jeri Ryan a bit of trouble from time to time I’ve heard. A guy a know knows her through Google Hangouts says that she likes Google Hangouts, but doesn’t go on them much due to whenever she goes on there all people ever want to talk to her about is star trek and are pervs towards her when all she wants to talk about is gardening and flowers.
Of course that might not be true as the guy could have been lying to me, but to think that is how some “fans” act towards her is saddening, as is that people think that Voyager was a bad series and the Prime Timeline is being tossed out because it means there is less and less chance of her reprising her role.
I’d love to hear some real risk-takers’ non-feminist Star Track podcast.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/22863405fef39cc466215417e59328692ecfcf94cb58046a026a5e03fdd4d9f2.jpg
Mmmm. Constellation’s serving pretzels. Mmmm.
So if the Constellation had any Vulcan bridge officers, they had Steely Dan’s Pretzel Logic on repeat play, right?
(Man, this is becoming “answer everyone’s questions with an album from the ’70s”, isn’t it?)
FREE. just mail me postage paid bubble wrap envelope. Small. deaddropsd@yahoo.com
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/001738fbfaa5d314153a13e54e0e7e54afae4dc95b1ff2ca88db1af13783e5b6.jpg
I remember the first ad I saw for DS9. All it basically said was “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Coming in January.” It showed no footage and because this was my first time hearing about it, I didn’t even know if this was a new movie or TV show or what, but because I was young and I was so excited for a new Star Trek thing, I leaped into the air with excitement like some kind of a spazz. I had similar reactions to trailers for the first couple TNG movies (I accidentally scraped my knuckles on my low dorm room ceiling after seeing an ad for First Contact). Nowadays, I’m usually a lot more guarded when it comes to trailers, but I’m cautiously optimistic concerning Discovery. I’m so sick of armchair critics who want to nit-pick a show or movie or even actively root for it to fail before it even comes out.
The teaser for First Contact is actually quite good indeed!
Hermeneutics (/hɜːrməˈnjuːtɪks/)[1] is the theory and methodology of interpretation,[2][3] especially the interpretation of biblical texts, wisdom literature, and philosophical texts.[4][5]
Modern hermeneutics includes both verbal and non-verbal communication[6][7] as well as semiotics, presuppositions, and pre-understandings. Hermeneutics has been broadly applied in the humanities, especially in law, history and theology.
Hermeneutics was initially applied to the interpretation, or exegesis, of scripture, and has been later broadened to questions of general interpretation.[8] The terms “hermeneutics” and “exegesis” are sometimes used interchangeably. Hermeneutics is a wider discipline which includes written, verbal, and non-verbal[6][7] communication. Exegesis focuses primarily upon the word and grammar of texts.
Hermeneutic, as a singular noun, refers to some particular method of interpretation (see, in contrast, double hermeneutic).