The important distinction, I believe, is that Kai Winn and Dukat were villains, characters designed to be hated. Wesley was supposed to be a precocious scamp, bringing levity and juvenility to an otherwise dry and mature crew, but just ended up being… Wesley.
Kai Winn is intended to be hated. And Dukat is such an enjoyable character that the writers had to go out of their way to remind everyone that he’s a bad guy.
I don’t think people hate Wesley in the same way. They don’t hate the fictional person, they hate the way the story presents him. They hate the way he saves the ship by being effortlessly superior to everyone, including Data. And it doesn’t help that he was a young actor with limited skill, featured most prominently during the shows weakest seasons that suffered from bad writing.
I think there’s far less negative reaction to the Wesley we see in The Samaritan Snare or The First Duty. He’s still a smart kid with a lot of potential, but the story presents him as a flawed, vulnerable person, rather than an obnoxious little shit with a terminal case of smug overconfidence.
By consistently contributing to the sub only 'to save people a click' rather than contributing interesting Links of your own, I find you in violation of rules one and three.
No one disagrees that internet news articles can do better in terms of quality and content. However by only contributing what you dislike as opposed to contributing what you do like, you're coming across as entitled and disrespectful to the spirit of the community.
I give you two hours to find and post a scifi article or item for us to talk about or face a one week ban.
However by only contributing what you dislike as opposed to contributing what you do like, you’re coming across as entitled and disrespectful to the spirit of the community.
This is an odd perspective. They’re literally contributing by fixing what they dislike and preventing others from having to waste time. They don’t come across as entitled. They come across as helpful and respecting the time and attention spans of the community.
Ok, are we not seeing the at that title is both hyperbolic and click-bait? If it was an in depth, thoughtful article, it’d be a different thing. Is anyone surprised a for profit company is not spent g capital on a streaming program over movies, which are inarguably more profitable.
This seems a rather impressively outsized a reaction for a common push back against click-bait articles thing.
More seasons than TOS, TAS, Enterprise, or Picard.
I didn’t watch the whole show; it didn’t really seam to know what it wanted to be, or how to get there. But I watched waaaay more of Discovery than Picard. Picard was awful, but it doesn’t seem to get as much flak as Discovery.
Picard had the retrospect to notice that fans didn't want new experiments with old figures and then they did their latest season and it was brilliant. The rest of Picard was very decidedly Trek but so awfully slow paced that I can't blame anyone for giving up on it.
Do you not have the belief that you should watch every bit of canon Star Trek that’s available, no matter what? I do. It doesn’t take much time. Now that Picard 3 is out, I’m going to do a fast rewatch of all three seasons and see if I can understand it better, because I sure as hell didn’t the first time through S1 & 2.
I don’t think that there really can be cannon for media projects with this many different leaders at the helm, made so far apart, and without a strong source material. There’s so much media to watch out there that if I don’t like a show, I am not going to watch it just because I liked other shows with a similar naming scheme.
There is also a lot of time travel and “mirror universing” in Trek, so whatever could be considered cannon might not have happened in the same timeline as other events that are also considered cannon.
It got (quite unfairly imho) generally negative-to-horrible reviews and it did astoundingly bad box office in the US, but I really liked the film when I saw it during its original, brief theatrical run and in fact have been thinking of rewatching it again after all these years. Heck, it’s got Bill Murray!
I don’t understand this blog piece. There’s nothing in the actual article which explains why time is running out to see this film. (Feels like clickbait.)
I’m going to date myself here I think about this movie from time to time. As a kid I really wanted to go to space and this movie showed me it was “possible” and kept me dreaming. The only shame is that it was completely overshadowed by the space shuttle Challenger disaster that occurred around it’s release.
I actually found this over the lockdowns because I did remember it and wanted my kids to see it. What I had forgotten about was the terrible robot mascot thing that they crammed into the beginning and tried to make a part of the movie for no reason.
i remember this movie. i saw it in the theater. it was terrible unless you were 8-10 years old.
a tour robot befriends a kid and sends him and his classmates to space in what was supposed to be a mock take off. such a terrible, non-plausible script
giantfreakinrobot.com
Ważne