Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck

This forum is for discussing Chuck's videos as they are publicly released. And for bashing Neelix, but that's just repeating what I already said.
User avatar
FaxModem1
Captain
Posts: 839
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:18 am

Re: Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck

Post by FaxModem1 »

Bar Association.

Chuck seems rather anti-union and against the idea of strikes in general. I'm rather pro-labor. So I'm naturally against his stance there.
Image
Thebestoftherest
Captain
Posts: 3513
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:22 pm

Re: Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck

Post by Thebestoftherest »

I can see it.
Artabax
Officer
Posts: 269
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2018 11:03 pm

Re: Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck

Post by Artabax »

Dragon Ball Fan wrote: Tue Apr 14, 2020 2:34 am
CrypticMirror wrote: Tue Apr 14, 2020 2:20 am After Waltz it is even easier to say he wasn't evil. He was already having a mental health episode by the start of Waltz, Sisko goaded him into a full on psychotic break. From a psychiatric point of view, that makes him more innocent after that. He's ill, and expressing multiple symptoms. You should be nicer to Dukat after Waltz.
that isn't what the writers of the episode think and they make it clear with dialogue like when Sisko said there is true evil in the world ow when he ironically told Dukat he isn't an evil man.
Sane!Dukat is evil. There were a few episodes of insane!Dukat being beyond Good and Evil. Over time, he was cured so then there were episodes of Dukat reverting to being both sane and evil
Self sealing stem bolts don't just seal themselves, you know.
drewder
Officer
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 1:45 am

Re: Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck

Post by drewder »

FaxModem1 wrote: Fri May 01, 2020 10:20 pm Bar Association.

Chuck seems rather anti-union and against the idea of strikes in general. I'm rather pro-labor. So I'm naturally against his stance there.
I disagree that he's anti union. He's realistic about the negatives of unions and points out the pro union bias of having everyone involved in the creation of the episode being union members without any dissenting opinions.

It goes into the bubble that many in Hollywood live in where everyone they know thinks like them and therefore anyone who doesn't is either too stupid to understand or outright evil.
drewder
Officer
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 1:45 am

Re: Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck

Post by drewder »

Robovski wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:04 am Winn is hot garbage.
i disagree. She can in no way be considered hot.
User avatar
CrypticMirror
Captain
Posts: 926
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:15 am

Re: Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck

Post by CrypticMirror »

drewder wrote: Mon May 04, 2020 1:06 pm
Robovski wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:04 am Winn is hot garbage.
i disagree. She can in no way be considered hot.
Hey, no kink shaming. Out there in the world, there is bound to be a group of people who find middle aged space nuns to be sizzling hot. YKINMKBYKIOK
J!!
Captain
Posts: 850
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck

Post by J!! »

If condescending church ladies are your kink, she's Betty Page.
Captain Crimson
Captain
Posts: 1541
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2020 10:37 pm

Re: Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck

Post by Captain Crimson »

I would like to offer up my first point of contention with Mr. Chuck, in the episodes of Miri and The Omega Glory. Personally, given the science of the era TOS was made, I don't feel as if it's a screw-up from Mr. Roddenberry, but consistent to quantum theories and what probably a lot of science journals were publishing back then. You know? How in the quantum principle model that it's not entirely unlikely you can find a near identical Earth out there in the cosmos, as this conforms beautifully to the scientific hypothesis which proposes space is infinite, and this may be possible in other galaxies.

That, and furthermore, TOS itself implies many times that the UFP we see is not the same one that would later develop on both TNG and DS9. The running subtext through the show is that the UFP is an intergalactic power. Exhibit A, The Alternative Factor. Their instruments detect a disruption in the entire galaxy. A lot of this is retconned within TNG and DS9, and I get why. It was the era in which Superman was also having a lot of his story-breaker powers toned down by the post-COIE writers. If he can do anything, where is the drama? But I hope you see what I mean. Oh, another fine example would be A Taste of Armageddon. NGC-321 is the name of the star cluster given, which would put it in another galaxy. I know other examples counteract this too, but my overall point is that an intergalactic UFP is far from a few outlier examples in TOS.

So, how does this tie into my first observation? That while you could definitely speak to the quality of the story, or that perhaps a little more emphasis should have been placed on the examination of these phenomenon, I think it still taps into the more grounded science-like aspects TOS was striving for within its age. So while I would respect Mr. Chuck dislikes the story for valid reasons, I can't agree with him as to the science given and that it's utterly implausible, even in the context of the universe itself.
User avatar
Ixthos
Officer
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:03 pm

Re: Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck

Post by Ixthos »

Captain Crimson wrote: Wed May 13, 2020 6:15 pm I would like to offer up my first point of contention with Mr. Chuck, in the episodes of Miri and The Omega Glory. Personally, given the science of the era TOS was made, I don't feel as if it's a screw-up from Mr. Roddenberry, but consistent to quantum theories and what probably a lot of science journals were publishing back then. You know? How in the quantum principle model that it's not entirely unlikely you can find a near identical Earth out there in the cosmos, as this conforms beautifully to the scientific hypothesis which proposes space is infinite, and this may be possible in other galaxies.

That, and furthermore, TOS itself implies many times that the UFP we see is not the same one that would later develop on both TNG and DS9. The running subtext through the show is that the UFP is an intergalactic power. Exhibit A, The Alternative Factor. Their instruments detect a disruption in the entire galaxy. A lot of this is retconned within TNG and DS9, and I get why. It was the era in which Superman was also having a lot of his story-breaker powers toned down by the post-COIE writers. If he can do anything, where is the drama? But I hope you see what I mean. Oh, another fine example would be A Taste of Armageddon. NGC-321 is the name of the star cluster given, which would put it in another galaxy. I know other examples counteract this too, but my overall point is that an intergalactic UFP is far from a few outlier examples in TOS.

So, how does this tie into my first observation? That while you could definitely speak to the quality of the story, or that perhaps a little more emphasis should have been placed on the examination of these phenomenon, I think it still taps into the more grounded science-like aspects TOS was striving for within its age. So while I would respect Mr. Chuck dislikes the story for valid reasons, I can't agree with him as to the science given and that it's utterly implausible, even in the context of the universe itself.
I like this theory, though I think it runs into problems with the barrier around the galaxy established in Where No Man Has Gone Before, which is implied in By Any Other Name if memory serves to not just be around the rim but rather to surround the entire galaxy, as the alien enemies were able to modify the Enterprise to fly past it in order to reach their own galaxy.

On the topic of infinite space implying repetition, while I agree with the logic behind it, I would like to note that infinity doesn't necessarily mean "anything" can happen, or even that certain events "have" to repeat. For example, imagine the infinite series defined as every odd number being a zero, and every even number defined as a one. While infinite, there is no place in the sequence where a five shows up, even though five is a valid number. And if we imagine this same sequence, only we define the digits in position ten through twenty five as being equal to Tree(3), we now have something which is infinite, has unique areas that aren't repeated anywhere and which are themselves exceptional, and yet still has the entire equation averaging to 0.5 due to infinity being far larger than Tree(3).
Captain Crimson
Captain
Posts: 1541
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2020 10:37 pm

Re: Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck

Post by Captain Crimson »

Well, it was just an observation. :mrgreen:
Post Reply