He lampshaded multiple tropes in that episode. The one about the number of ways to blow up the ship was my favorite.
PunditGuy
PunditGuy
This was certainly the Trekiest of the Discovery episodes so far. If they can sustain something like this tone moving forward, I think it’ll go a long way toward winning over some percentage of the haters.
You’re empathetic toward the fictional character you’ve created. You’re making assumptions about her drug of choice, her food selection preferences and the motivation of her kids.
Our empathy is for the kids. And if it seems lacking for the parents, it’s because it seems lacking in the parents.
I’m sure that the fuzzy Klingon detector Lorca keeps in his ready room will end up being used.
One of the more interesting tidbits from the “Logan” director’s commentary track is about the R rating. James Mangold explained that the advantage wasn’t about being able to show more bloody violence or use the word “fuck” a few more times. Without worrying about kids being in the audience, you can tell more complex…
For what it’s worth, I also read that as a pass.
Got to level 42.
From the French, dent de lion (dahn dee leon) — tooth of the lion.
It can take a little bit for a cast and crew to come together. Hell, go back and watch the first season of TNG and it’s a wonder any more got made.
>the same way my brother thinks women shouldn’t pursue Ivy League educations<
Fair point, although I’ll argue that giving specific instructions aimed at getting someone to die, and stopping them from stopping themselves, isn’t a slope away from “go ahead” — it’s a fall off a cliff.
Do the facts in this case seem similar to your scenario?
Better the criminal justice system than nobody. But more importantly, why not the criminal justice system?
I see a lot of people warning about a slippery slope here, but I honestly can’t see the bottom of the hill. What’s your worst-case scenario based on this decision? Because if it’s “now people will be reluctant to encourage vulnerable people to commit suicide” then — I’m okay with that.
You have a First Amendment right to express your feelings about ice cream. You do not have a First Amendment right to ice cream.
You have some kernel of an idea in there somewhere. (There are already several codified legal restrictions on freedom of speech — libel and copyright laws are good examples.) But “you are censoring people who want to censor it” doesn’t make any lick of sense. Nobody is stopping the protestors from expressing the idea…