Star Trek - Space: The Final Frontier

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Oats12345 said:
Why don't they just admit she's fat? Aren't lefties always defending obesity?
Click to expand...
Lefties (especially your standard American liberal) see themselves as the ideology of good, well-mannered, polite society and calling someone fat is still seen as impolite so they avoid it. This makes sense if you live in a society where being fat is culturally a bad thing but that clearly isn't the case in America any more so hey here we are
 
Remember a couple episodes ago, when Burnham needed to bring one officer for a dangerous, lethal combat mission to subdue a professional assassin, and so decided to bring fat Tilly who didn't know how to fight or even hold a weapon without dropping it, because Tilly was "bored" and "wanted to try something new"?
 
Privilege Power Hour said:
calling someone fat is still seen as impolite so they avoid it.
Click to expand...
The tabloids played themselves.

aRXLzp5_460s.jpg


There is such a thing as too fat, but we're not allowed to say it anymore, because the media likes to project insecurities on people.
 
Last edited:
JamesFargo said:
The tabloids played themselves.
View attachment 2848135
There is such a thing as too fat, but we're not allowed to say it anymore, because the media likes to project insecurities on people.
Click to expand...
Who body shamed her? Because I can't recall any straight guys at the time complaining about that body...
 
Flexo said:
Who body shamed her? Because I can't recall any straight guys at the time complaining about that body...
Click to expand...
Apparently the costumers kept having to alter her suit. That was a pain in the ass for production, so her nickname on-set became "Fatgirl." Contextually, it was the heroin chic era.

There is a slightly weird line in Batman '89 too: Batman calls his ride and tells Vickie she weighs more than 108 lbs :story:
 
Grand Wizard Wakka said:
It was the Batman movie directed by the flaming catty faggot who put nipples on Batman and Robin's armors.
Click to expand...
Nipples on body suits and/or armor are great provided it is wore by attractive women. Preferably the suits/armor are designed either by Go Nagai or Satoshi Urushihara. For men however, even vintage 80ies CLAMP dropped the nipple armor [RG Veda] cause it was too gay even for them.
 
Last edited:
JamesFargo said:
The tabloids played themselves.
View attachment 2848135
There is such a thing as too fat, but we're not allowed to say it anymore, because the media likes to project insecurities on people.
Click to expand...
To be fair... She was the only main character in that movie who didn't have nipples on their costume, and also the only main character who I would have actually been ok seeing nipples on their costume in the first place. (I know they're slightly pointy, but they aren't Bat Nipples XD)
snru85GmgFLSWADMKfhGG3.jpg



Anyway, maybe it was wrong to call Silverstone "FatGirl," but can we at least call Val Kilmer (Who I believe was actually in the Batman movie before her) "FatMan," when he looks like this now?:

fat-val-kilmer_400x400.jpg
 
UnKillShredDur said:
To be fair... She was the only main character in that movie who didn't have nipples on their costume, and also the only main character who I would have actually been ok seeing nipples on their costume in the first place. (I know they're slightly pointy, but they aren't Bat Nipples XD)
View attachment 2850324


Anyway, maybe it was wrong to call Silverstone "FatGirl," but can we at least call Val Kilmer (Who I believe was actually in the Batman movie before her) "FatMan," when he looks like this now?:

View attachment 2850335
Click to expand...

That's not what Val Kilmer looks like now. He had throat cancer and hasn't eaten solid food in years. Consequently, he lost some weight.

1641110306013.png
 
Okay, after seeing Book's story arc over the last few episodes, now I understand why Roddenberry insisted on that "People accept death and don't waste time mourning" rule that tripped up Michael Piller and Ron Moore on their first episode - it was to prevent an entire season of someone wangsting over having something bad happen to them. Fair's fair, I appreciate that they're not going about it in the same way that Voyager would have done (where most of the mourning would be over and done with by the end of the episode in which the tragedy happened, and maybe there'd be a follow-up episode in the next season, after which it'd never be mentioned again), but it's getting seriously fucking repetitive.

Grand Wizard Wakka said:
Remember a couple episodes ago, when Burnham needed to bring one officer for a dangerous, lethal combat mission to subdue a professional assassin, and so decided to bring fat Tilly who didn't know how to fight or even hold a weapon without dropping it, because Tilly was "bored" and "wanted to try something new"?
Click to expand...
Which, ironically, they needed to derail Tilly's character in order to accomplish, since her debut episode had shown her to be socially awkward, but actually quite capable of holding her own in a combat situation.

Bryan Fuller may have been the wrong person to turn to when it came to creating a new Star Trek show, but at least the guy's got some genuine talent when it comes to creating characters and writing them with some depth. Hell, now I'm starting to wonder what minor failure to be sufficiently woke got the Season 1 and 2 showrunners shitcanned in favor of the current hacks; as bad as their work was at times, at least there were some mild signs that things were starting to go in the right direction in Season 2, before everything completely went to hell.
 
HarryHowler said:
Okay, after seeing Book's story arc over the last few episodes, now I understand why Roddenberry insisted on that "People accept death and don't waste time mourning" rule that tripped up Michael Piller and Ron Moore on their first episode - it was to prevent an entire season of someone wangsting over having something bad happen to them. Fair's fair, I appreciate that they're not going about it in the same way that Voyager would have done (where most of the mourning would be over and done with by the end of the episode in which the tragedy happened, and maybe there'd be a follow-up episode in the next season, after which it'd never be mentioned again), but it's getting seriously fucking repetitive.


Which, ironically, they needed to derail Tilly's character in order to accomplish, since her debut episode had shown her to be socially awkward, but actually quite capable of holding her own in a combat situation.

Bryan Fuller may have been the wrong person to turn to when it came to creating a new Star Trek show, but at least the guy's got some genuine talent when it comes to creating characters and writing them with some depth. Hell, now I'm starting to wonder what minor failure to be sufficiently woke got the Season 1 and 2 showrunners shitcanned in favor of the current hacks; as bad as their work was at times, at least there were some mild signs that things were starting to go in the right direction in Season 2, before everything completely went to hell.
Click to expand...
Somewhat related, but one aspect of that is that Roddenberry imagined a humanity that indeed was different in fundamental ways from today. You can of course disagree with that, (and many writers did) but that was the corner stone on which TNG was based thematically. People have an ingrained stoicism and emotional maturity and handle death in a resolute way befitting an evolved humanity.

Problem is, this is very hard to write. It’s much easier to write the future humans as fundamentally the same as they are now. Either in Ronald Moore’s case when it came to cynicism or in Discovery and Picard’s case when it comes to cursing non stop and continuing obesity.

More to the point, Star Trek did in some ways “‘not” represent reality as it is. People in the real world, aren’t as disciplined, rational, adventurous, or professional as they are in Star Trek. They’re crude, base, and subject to any number of vices.

Creatures like Alex Kurtzman see Trek and find it completely removed from their vulgar base existence, so he treats the characters as having the same flaws and the problems because well that’s how people are now. He isn’t lying when he says he could not relate to Star Trek growing up. Because Roddenberry’s vision is completely contrary to his own life and what he imagines is possible.
 
Shamash said:
Somewhat related, but one aspect of that is that Roddenberry imagined a humanity that indeed was different in fundamental ways from today. You can of course disagree with that, (and many writers did) but that was the corner stone on which TNG was based thematically. People have an ingrained stoicism and emotional maturity and handle death in a resolute way befitting an evolved humanity.

Problem is, this is very hard to write. It’s much easier to write the future humans as fundamentally the same as they are now. Either in Ronald Moore’s case when it came to cynicism or in Discovery and Picard’s case when it comes to cursing non stop and continuing obesity.

More to the point, Star Trek did in some ways “‘not” represent reality as it is. People in the real world, aren’t as disciplined, rational, adventurous, or professional as they are in Star Trek. They’re crude, base, and subject to any number of vices.

Creatures like Alex Kurtzman see Trek and find it completely removed from their vulgar base existence, so he treats the characters as having the same flaws and the problems because well that’s how people are now. He isn’t lying when he says he could not relate to Star Trek growing up. Because Roddenberry’s vision is completely contrary to his own life and what he imagines is possible.
Click to expand...
It's why DS9 continues to hold up, because they found the happy medium between these two extremes. Yes, the people humanity sends out to the very edge of the frontier to explore space will be emotionally mature and stoic. They have to be calm in the face of crisis and insanity otherwise they all die.

But they are still humans and still feel things. DS9 was also great at showing us times when the crew were not "on the job" and could experience emotions.

Again, I want to post the Worf/Sisko discussion. "You do it not for yourself, but for the men you lead. Because they need it." A great "off job" moment where we see two characters dealing with their flaws and struggling.

It's about being mature and adult. STD and Picard aren't mature. They're a child's interpretation of what it means to be an adult.
 
Last edited:
Shamash said:
Creatures like Alex Kurtzman see Trek and find it completely removed from their vulgar base existence, so he treats the characters as having the same flaws and the problems because well that’s how people are now. He isn’t lying when he says he could not relate to Star Trek growing up. Because Roddenberry’s vision is completely contrary to his own life and what he imagines is possible.
Click to expand...
But they do have the same flaws we have now. Look at how they talk about their personal lives and see how bullying is still a thing. Look how Weasleys team managed the catastrophe they caused.

Look. At. Barclay.

There are many differences, sure, but the core of humanity is still there. Which makes Kurtzmans statement funnier.
 
Tasty Tatty said:
But they do have the same flaws we have now. Look at how they talk about their personal lives and see how bullying is still a thing. Look how Weasleys team managed the catastrophe they caused.

Look. At. Barclay.

There are many differences, sure, but the core of humanity is still there. Which makes Kurtzmans statement funnier.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've always found the "Roddenberry's vision is impossible to write for!!!" to be greatly exaggerated. Like really, Kirk and Bones didn't come off as humans? Characters in TNG season 1 were still humans.

He'd meant for humanity to have grown past the problems bothering them in those days, in these days. He didn't want the ship to be filled with petty "unenlightened" drama, but I feel people run with that and take it autistically. I think he just meant that people were enlightened enough to be able to talk problems out, understand each other.

A great contrast is how Picard doesn't let anyone give up on Barklay, vs that Short Trek where the chick is like "He was an idiot. Conversation over." Roddenberry's ideals of behaviour vs modern ideals... sadly.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom