Don't understand the dislike for Turnabout Intruder
-
rcocean3 — 9 years ago(October 20, 2016 06:11 PM)
Curious, I refreshed my memory but re-watching the episode. The acting is very good, especially Smith as Lester-Kirk, and Scotty has a great moment when Doohan shows he could have done more on the show -actor-wise.
Even Shatner is good. He does go over the top, especially when he has to show just through body movements that he's being transferred in or out of Lester's body. But his ability to portray a hysterical woman trying to be "Captain kirk" is quite good. -
ben-thayer — 9 years ago(October 21, 2016 12:42 PM)
It's actually one of the few third season episodes that's fun to watch.
Not to be a troll, but I must respectfully disagreeat least partially. Although the 3rd season is typically considered the worst, I still find the season imminently fun to watch.
Episodes such as Spock's Brain, Spectre of the Gun, and The Way to EdenI don't see them as bad, but rather "nothing BUT fun".
Skip Homeier with the ears, and Charles Napier singing Headin' Out to Eden (Yea Brother)I say bring on the funky bicycle wheel instrument and let's JAM! It's now, manreally NOW!
I find these episodes vastly entertaining.
Even head-scratchers such as And the Children Shall Lead and The Empath still entertain me. Although I'm sure there was one deleted scene in The Empath where Kirk berates McCoy for deciding to give the young woman his name
But there were many S3 eps I consider to be greatDay of the Dove, The Tholian Web, Elaan of Troius, That Which Survives for example.
And I'm also a fan of Whom Gods Destroyalthough it may the way they mixed and matched all those pieces of costumes from the wardrobe department! Oh, and Yvonne CraigyeahYvonne Craig -
srb-3 — 9 years ago(October 21, 2016 02:35 PM)
- Janice Lester is not a developed character. She is a stereotype.
- Kirk dating Janice Lester at any time in his life does not make a whole of sense as Janice Lester is repulsive.
- Only males can be Captains in Star Fleet. This goes against the IDIC philosophy.
-
kerryedavis — 9 years ago(October 21, 2016 02:47 PM)
IDIC is about different planets/races/species. It doesn't say that every member of every planet/race/species is equally qualified for any kind of job regardless of skill, talent, temperament, etc. That's just PC/SJW nonsense.
-
kerryedavis — 9 years ago(October 21, 2016 04:55 PM)
You've never seen the Kollos episode? Some fan YOU are.
Dr. Miranda Jones: I know now the great joy you felt when you joined minds with Kollos.
Mr. Spock: I rejoice in your knowledge and in your achievement.
Dr. Miranda Jones: [regarding the Vulcan IDIC] I understand, Mr. Spock. The glory of creation is in its infinite diversity.
Mr. Spock: And the ways our differences combine, to create meaning and beauty. -
rcocean3 — 9 years ago(October 21, 2016 05:05 PM)
I must have missed that. Thanks.
Still puzzled as to why Vulcan philosophy means crazy, unqualified chicks can be Starship Captains.
Of course, given the numbers of crazy MALE Starship captains, why not some female ones?
Seems like every other planet has some rogue male Starship commander who went crazy and thought Nazism or whatever was a good idea. -
grizzledgeezer — 9 years ago(October 21, 2016 07:55 PM)
Still puzzled as to why Vulcan philosophy means crazy, unqualified chicks can be Starship Captains.
You seem to be going out of your way to miss the point. I'll spell it out:
One need not be a raging feminist to wonder why, circa 2100, there are no female starship captains. -
kerryedavis — 9 years ago(October 21, 2016 08:42 PM)
But why assume they're just sexist or whatever? That's what leftists do NOW. So if 50% of weightlifting champions aren't female, they insist it must be institutional sexism or whatever. If they're advanced in so many other ways in the future, why not believe that maybe they found a reason?
-
grizzledgeezer — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 06:27 AM)
Well, I'm a leftist, and I don't believe that.
If there were weightlifting competitions for women as well as men, then 50% of the champions would be women. They just wouldn't be competing with men, for very obvious reasons.
Shall we waste time arguing the obvious that men and women are different, that some of those differences are biological, others have been imposed on women? Why are you so insistent on believing that women might be inherently incapable of management and command?
In an "ideal" society, people would be able to progress as far as they desired and were capable of progressing not held back, or being forced into a career they had no interest in, "just to prove a point". -
chris109 — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 06:47 AM)
Hey grizzled, you do know that if you vote for Hillary, Madonna will give you a bj.
https://www.rt.com/usa/363357-madonna-offers-fellatio-clinton-voters/ -
rcocean3 — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 12:21 PM)
One need not be a raging feminist to wonder why, circa 2100, there are no female starship captains.
No, why should there have been Female Starship Captains? Presumably, it would be a highly sought after, prestigious "Combat" position requiring physical and mental courage, outstanding leadership ability, tip-top physical conditioning, and a high verbal and mathematical IQ. There's no reason to believe out 50 or so Star Ship captains any of them would be female, any more than the Top 50 Army Combat Generals are female.
How many Women today command a nuclear Sub or an Aircraft Carrier? And how many of those are affirmative action babies because we're not expecting a Naval war anytime soon?
Of course, in 1969 we were in a shooting war and everyone over that age 35 had lived through WW2 and/or Korea, and the whole idea of female Captain of a large combat vessel, like Halsey or Nimitz, would've been laughable. -
kerryedavis — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 02:58 PM)
These days, which I guess grizzledgeezer doesn't understand - and which would make him insufficiently leftist to those who decide such things now - the fact that half of the commanders aren't female, is ipso facto, prima facie evidence of sexism.
He also doesn't seem to gather that his own example is nonsense. If you have X number of weightlifters, why should 50% of the champions be female even if 50% of the overall contestants aren't? That's an even more "special" type of lowering standards, dumbing down the competition, quota system, etc. Which leads to another problem: a lot of more-qualified people - i.e., men - stop even bothering to compete if they know that half of the "winners" will be less-qualified because the system is rigged. -
rcocean3 — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 04:31 PM)
Good points. It also ignores the factor of motivation. Men and Women are different (Duh).
If you went to say 100 randomly selected 18 year old men and asked them if they'd want to be a fighter pilot or the Captain of a Submarine, I'm sure a lot of them would say yes, and some of them would crawl over broken glass to be one.
If you asked 100 randomly selected 18 Year old women, the number saying "yes" would be much, much, less, and I doubt many would "crawl over broken glass" to be be one. They'd probably be more interested in being a CEO, a lawyer, or maybe even a Politician. -
grizzledgeezer — 9 years ago(October 23, 2016 11:52 AM)
In an "ideal" society, people would be able to progress as far as they desired and were capable of progressing not held back, or being forced into a career they had no interest in, "just to prove a point".
You also deliberately ignored what I said (above). -
kerryedavis — 9 years ago(October 24, 2016 07:10 PM)
That depends. Should you - or anyone else, for that matter - be allowed to practice medicine just because you want to?
At any rate, I hope you realize (but you probably don't, and likely can't) that to the extent such things exist, and especially to any extent they might go too far, it actually comes from liberalism, not conservatism.