|
doverhog posted:If Jews are not a race what does that mean for all the atheist ones? It's an ethnicity 
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
If you believe there are more than one race of humans you are racist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Yes, much better to be ethnicist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:I was worried at first that this was about the Replacements album of the same name and we would have to throw down. You Are A Elf posted:I would never talk ill of The Replacements, my friend. No one should.   A rare mention anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
For all your questions on what Jews are, please consult my favorite long Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Denigrating any type of people is bad and you shouldn't do it. I don't care what label you put on it. It's also not bad to be honest. I don't want to denigrate any people but it's ok to acknowledge differences that suck. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/ 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:Thrawn is canon now. good that trilogy's been the only decent thing to come out of the whole franchise since '83, lovely clone naming system and all
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
the "traitor" trooper is the best thing to come out of starwars since the jizz wailers
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Bigotry is bad, but I do think "Because!" is not an answer that gives bigots much to chew on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:This is getting kind of silly. All I was saying is that the federation in star trek and the jedi in star wars are pretty lame and hamstring themselves intentionally to avoid being too militaristic, whereas Stargate doesn't - the stargate program from the beginning (and aside from the brief times it was under government control) a military program with military goals. I really don't care to argue about why it is better, my opinion is that it just makes for a better show. The political and diplomatic parts of star trek and star wars (i.e. the prequels) bore me to tears. Just blow something up. Star Wars has really cool looking poo poo, is fun and you can watch it in a a couple of hours per movie. Star Gate Sg1 is a low rent Scy Fy show for uber nerds that no one with any taste is going to bother watching in the first place. That why Star Wars "gets all the sequels" whatever that means.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:Star Wars has really cool looking poo poo, is fun and you can watch it in a a couple of hours per movie. Star Gate Sg1 is a low rent Scy Fy show for uber nerds that no one with any taste is going to bother watching in the first place. That why Star Wars "gets all the sequels" whatever that means. What else would it mean besides "they keep making movies based on it"? And it was hardly "low rent", it started out as a showtime show and had macgyver in it, and is probably the only reason the scifi channel is still even around in its terrible "syfy" form - it certainly wasn't their original movies keeping them afloat. The only famous actors star wars has are only famous because they were in star wars. yeah i'm including harrison ford in that
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:And it was hardly "low rent", it started out as a showtime show and had macgyver in it ...Which one of those do you think is not low rent?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Even if it is it just strengthens my point that stargate managed to be better than the big name powerhouse titles with a fraction of their budget.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Babylon 5 is the best, with neither budget, recognizable actors, or more than 3 distinct sets  .(A favorite moment is when Cartagia is visiting Narn, and his assistant is like "we've done it up just like your throne room so you'll be comfortable!" which is a funny excuse in its own right, and made funnier by the fact that it's mostly cheap gauzy fabric hanging over cardboard tubes)
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Pick posted:Babylon 5 is the best, with neither budget, recognizable actors, or more than 3 distinct sets Don't forget about Farscape, which is very good in its own way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:...Which one of those do you think is not low rent?  yeah seriously. That show looked junky as poo poo from day. Comparing Stargate to Star Wars is super dumb in the first place. One of them was some 90's movie that got a TV show spin off that was niche as hell and ran for like 10 years. The other is a series of movies that is super accessible with a lot of mainstream appeal. They also have very little in common. It's like saying "I don't get why they made so many Harry Potter movies when Law and Order is so much more believable"
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Yea, the total hourage doesn't even compare. Star Wars is eight movies at about 2 hours each. Stargate is loving 200+ 45-minute long episodes. And you think they're making too many Star Wars?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:
Calling a science fiction series that ran for over 200 episodes and had multiple spinoff movies is not "niche as hell". e: also two spinoff series for an additional 7 seasons. wampalord you're fixating on the star wars comparison but my main beef is with star trek which you are conveniently ignoring completely. yeah I eat ass has a new favorite as of 19:10 on Dec 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Star Trek is also niche as hell and that's why it always had low ratings and weak box office until JJ Abrams fixed it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:wampalord you're fixating on the star wars comparison but my main beef is with star trek which you are conveniently ignoring completely. Gee I wonder why?  You probably have more of a point with Star Trek, it doesn't really have enough mainstream appeal to keep churning out movies, even though I thought Beyond was pretty good. The new show being on CBS's streaming service instead of TV says a lot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
I don't think he understands how unappealing stuff like Star Trek, Stargate, babylon 5, Farscape etc. is to the average person, because people that actually like those shows live in a bubble of people that actually watch them. That said I'm sure Stargate (just the movie) is ripe for a reboot and you will get your wish soon enough. JJ Abrams presents Stargate can't be more than 2 years off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:I don't think he understands how unappealing stuff like Star Trek, Stargate, babylon 5, Farscape etc. is to the average person, because people that actually like those shows live in a bubble of people that actually watch them. Babylon 5 and Farscape I'll concede that point on, but even my parents like SG-1 and they hate scifi stuff. also I think they are planning reboot(s) of the original movie, but from what I heard the original movie guy is involved and wants it to ignore everything that was established in SG-1/atlantis so I am expecting it to be terrible. yeah I eat ass has a new favorite as of 19:21 on Dec 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Babylon 5 is a show for turbonerds. i am that turbonerd.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
I'm not actually calling it bad. I've seen a total of maybe 2 episodes of it. It's not the type of thing I would ever devote time to penetrating, but it may very well be good if you are. I'm just saying it's junky looking and unnapealing on an aestetic level. I think you might be misjudging why Star Trek has the appeal it does. It's just familiarity. Not that many people actually want to watch 500 episodes of star trek but they know the characters and that's enough to warrant a movie. It's the same with comic books. Not that many people actually read the comics but we all know who batman and the xmen are etc. so they have a lot of mainstream appeal. 200 episodes of SG1 that your mom watched is not a selling point for making summer Blockbusters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Don't forget about Farscape, which is very good in its own way. farscape was good at doing its own thing but of all the low-rent sci fi shows i've watched, and i've probably watched them all, lexx is probably the most acquired taste of them all
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Stargate definitely is more appealing to the average "parent" because it has the army, armed with machine guns, fighting evil aliens with glowing eyes. That said it had some high points and the army thing actually works narratively.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
hard counter posted:farscape was good at doing its own thing but of all the low-rent sci fi shows i've watched, and i've probably watched them all, lexx is probably the most acquired taste of them all Even I couldn't get into Lexx. It's just too much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
My opinion that is both popular and unpopular depending on who you talk to is that Stargate SG-1 is a really, really bad show to the point where I've questioned my own sanity when I hear other people praise it. I kept trying to watch it with my friend and was like "what is this...this is one of the most amateur television shows I've ever seen" while my friend gushed over how awesome it was. It's like I can sense the disappointment emanating from all the actors that they have been relegated to such a show.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:I'm not actually calling it bad. I've seen a total of maybe 2 episodes of it. It's not the type of thing I would ever devote time to penetrating, but it may very well be good if you are. I'm just saying it's junky looking and unnapealing on an aestetic level. Babylon 5 has a grand story planned out 5 seasons in advance about politics, ethics, philosophy, time travel, etc. produced cheaply, at times acted poorly, and undercut with constant uncertainty about whether they would get renewed for another season. It's a great show if you can look past the problems, but it's gonna be pretty impossible to get into now unless you are the turboest of nerds. *it's easily the best show of all the ones mentioned in the last few pages doverhog has a new favorite as of 19:35 on Dec 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Even I couldn't get into Lexx. It's just too much. What the hell isn't there to like about a giant dick and balls flying around the universe wrecking poo poo They might as well have called it "Dick Jokes: The Show." Seriously, there was one episode where Stanley was watering plants and the watering can was a dick and balls. Think about that for a second. They paid the prop guy to make a functioning watering can shaped like a dong. Hell, not even "shaped like," but "no really we want a loving cock and balls." How could you not love that show
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Babylon 5 has a grand story planned out 5 seasons in advance about politics, ethics, philosophy, time travel, etc. produced cheaply, at times acted poorly, and undercut with constant uncertainty about whether they would get renewed for another season. It's a great show if you can look past the problems, but it's gonna be pretty impossible to get into now unless you are the turboest of nerds. eh if you watched it in the late 90s/early 00s it wasn't so bad lots of shows of questionable production value aired then, a couple of them like Hercules and Xena got to be reasonably popular too
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
It's also tough because some of its best qualities are tied to how groundbreaking it was, where other shows have begun to do those things more commonly. It's like when the lil alien in Twilight Zone screams "INCREDIBLE RACE OF GIANTS HERE! INCREDIBLE RACE OF GIANTS HERE!" and you're like oh poo poo, he's the human! That twist probably blew some people's fuckin minds in black-and-white teevee days, but now it's like woooahhh nice work, R.L. Stein.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:My opinion that is both popular and unpopular depending on who you talk to is that Stargate SG-1 is a really, really bad show to the point where I've questioned my own sanity when I hear other people praise it. I kept trying to watch it with my friend and was like "what is this...this is one of the most amateur television shows I've ever seen" while my friend gushed over how awesome it was. It's like I can sense the disappointment emanating from all the actors that they have been relegated to such a show. This is 100% correct. Everything about stargate is just really really bad. Fans of that show pull the " oh you're not into sci fi so that's why you don't like it" or " you don't like it because you like (whatever other sci fi series/movies)" and that is the biggest fuckin copout. The acting is lovely, the writing is lovely, the set designs and effects are lovely. It's top to bottom awful and I'm a huge sci fi nerd but that piece of crap show is inexcusable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
I've always though Sci fi was best packaged as a small intimate story that happens to take place in a sci fi setting. Almost all of my favorite sci fi is one movie or one book. Shows that try to tell a grand story over years about about that are incredibly unappealing to me. That's my personal unpopular opinion. Also, related unpopular opinion. I hate "world building" and prefer to call it bloat. Also, bad production values are pretty inexcusable in Sci-FI. If it's not interesting to look at it's not worth my time. I'm not saying it has to be big budget, but those network/cable sci fi shows from the 90's are the direct result of bad taste. veni veni veni has a new favorite as of 19:44 on Dec 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Eh, almost all old shows and movies have bad production. You can either look past it or you can''t. The thing that hits them harder is what Pick mentioned, it's all old news at this point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
I've never really enjoyed any sci-fi that wasn't up the alley of, say, Contact or Jurassic Park, but I always thought the problem to be with me and not sci-fi as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Eh, almost all old shows and movies have bad production. You can either look past it or you can''t. The thing that hits them harder is what Pick mentioned, it's all old news at this point. That said, I will still defend Babylon 5 to my grave, because it's build around a nugget of god-damned authenticity. True, the rest of the pearl is made of layers of ham and cardboard, but there's a kind of person out there who wants ham and cardboard with a center of pure gold. That might not describe most people, but for a subsection of the population, it's a joy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Frostyhawk posted:I've never really enjoyed any sci-fi that wasn't up the alley of, say, Contact or Jurassic Park, but I always thought the problem to be with me and not sci-fi as a whole. Honestly it's the same thing with every genre, tons of busch league poo poo and a handful of good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
sci-fi and fantasy should be considered settings, not genres. that goes for other genres that only define the setting and not the narrative; like westerns and other period pieces. these genres are often and rightfully considered trashy because great literature transcends their setting instead of being defined by it. genres like; comedy, horror & drama actually says something worthwhile about the narrative of a work. it seems weird imo to place emphasis on setting rather than narrative in defining genre, and i think that the focus on setting over narrative is essentially what world-building is, and authors that place a high emphasis on it will place less emphasis on character and story development. something that has a sci-fi or fantasy setting can obviously be part of any other genre, as well, but having a preference that focus on setting instead of narrative just seems rear end-backwards to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 20:52
|
|
