Thanks, Blaze.
Appreciate. ^^

Oh, rabbits!

Well, if you’re looking for absolute perfection in a ST theme, good luck. It’s not like Mike Post or John Williams were writing these suckers.

That said, I thought Alexander Courage did a hell of a job on the original.

I find it ever-so-slightly pompous with all the horns, but otherwise, a cool remix of the original theme.

Seems kind of weirdly unnecessary to start with “Lemmy” instead of just going with TMBG, but whatevs. Subscribed to John & John.

Roddenberry from what I’ve read in multiple places sounded like a huge asshole to me, and nowhere near the ‘Great Bird of the Galaxy’ he liked to self-label himself as. Now yes, a very talented asshole, whose vision started the franchise, and certainly who put in much work on TOS (along with many other talents), but nevertheless a real PITA on a personal level who wound up burning most of his bridges.

Point is-- if Meyer lost his cool with him as a young guy, I wouldn’t be very surprised.

@wjrii@lemmy.world

And… what symmetry would THAT be, dude?

It’s been a long, loooong time since I’ve uttered these words, but: THAT ABSOLUTELY KICKS ASS. (or Romulan pastrami, whatever)

Now, there’s always going to be a quibble, so here’s mine: Leonard Nimoy was about 6’ in actual height, and I believe Jon Frakes is about 6’3" - 6’4," right around Michael Dorn’s height, for example.

Still-- I get it. If the artist is trying to suggest the outsized influence of Spock, I understand. I mean, Shatner was utterly magnificent in his role, but Nimoy was also right there with him, a brilliant, iconic presence that helped turn TOS in to what might have otherwise been “Lost in Space.”

Oy, now I understand why I wasn’t seeing your latest content!

Hmm, I haven’t hyperventilated in a long time.

Good stuff; thanks for sharing.

The contrast between Curtis’ outgoing personality versus the character she played reminded me a bit of Jeremy Brett playing Sherlock Holmes. I would think one’s native personality would peek through the stoniness of the role from time to time, regardless.

You’re quite right, altho I think it was a different scene or sub-scene.

This seems to be either an outtake or a between-scenes shot.

The coming of the apocalypse, I presume! D:

But seriously, I was blown away when I first saw this, especially strange since it’s been around for… well over 10yrs I think?

Thanks for commenting, and I was hoping it might lead to some interesting discussion.

If I may ask-- did you feel like Gerrold was too harsh in particular towards Roddenberry?

Ohh, you’re so clever…
You got me, pard!
<falls over dead>

OH!
My poor little one… :-(

Evolution doesn’t care about ideal mechanics- only good enough. Rape was common in the ancient world. Rape happens today despite the long term survival favoring long term pairs.

There’s certainly some facts & reality there, professor, but that still doesn’t change the fundamental point which Adams’ made, and I defended. It’s like you’re freely swinging from ‘matters of proportion’ to binary values in order to fit your argument.

So attributing nobility to what is really a lack of ability is like attributing nobility to a rock.

Which was a poor analogy from day one, considering the many permutations.
Also-- that’s a pretty weird, tight-ass understanding of what Adams meant by “nobility.”
Like, seriously…?

A rooster would plot and murder its neighbors if it had the intelligence and opposable thumbs to make weapons.

Okay, you win on that one-- I fear you’re exactly right there; ala chickens being such unnecessary assholes towards each other and other creatures.

Tell you what, though-- feel free to have the last reply.
It’s like you dance around a smidgen of a circuitous argument, but can never actually figure out what you’re actually trying to say. (or think) Good luck, you.

That doesn’t refute the poster above. Humans have evolutionary imperatives too.

It does when you put it in context, tho, that being that the poster above did not refute Adams’ point in any meaningful way. Specifically-- rape isn’t ordinary in terms of two-sex species, and is likely a poorer long-term survival mechanism compared to courtship species.

That’s not nobility as the original Watership quote implies but a simple lack of capacity to conceive and implement evil. The original quote could equally wax poetic about how rocks don’t try to spoil other creatures lives.

That’s not correct. Higher animals certainly possess more self-awareness than rocks, and have (as you say) a spectrum of capacity for self-awareness, for reflection, and for modifying one’s behavior.

The real point is this-- unlike all known animals, we collectively have the information available to us of how terribly our existence and practices are fueling one of the greatest extinction events in Earth history… on track with causing civilisation to collapse, likely causing most of humanity to soon die out, if not go entirely extinct. We have not just that info based on the science, facts & reality, but the average mental capacity to understood and take necessary action to prevent all this. Or at least, we “had.” Instead we’ve collectively chosen to pursue our individual lives and let things sort themselves out. Well, good luck with that.

Adams’ quote was perfectly fair IMO.

People are not automatons that are obligated to no longer think a behavior is fucked up just because that behavior benefited these animals in terms of increasing the liklihood of them passing down their genes.

Sure, that’s fine. Label and condemn as you like.
My point is, that’s not a relevant rebuttal to Adams’ quote, as most sexually dimorphic animals do not behave that way. I.e., females generally select their partners, and are not commonly raped. Indeed, that’s part of the whole long-term survival point-- that ‘courtship’ species have better chances for genetic diversity & fitness for their environs.

As for one species empathising with another, that is a far cry from empathising more with another species than your own or being willing to sacrifice yourself for the benefit of another species. I WAS NOT saying that no species empathises with another.

*shrug*
Okay, if you say so. It sure sounded like it, but maybe I misread.

So much of that is dead wrong:

Cats: torture their prey to death as a form of play.

“Play” isn’t just an idle pursuit. It’s also a form of safe practice of one’s life pursuit. In the case of cats, they evolved to be almost 100% carnivores, so it’s natural for them to live, breath, and yes practice / play at honing their pursuit and kill skills. It is literally their fundamental job that separates them from dying off.

Dolphins: you dont want to know.

Let’s not forget two things here: 1) much of the rapey stuff (as with ducks) also serves the fundamental life model of reproduction being one of the highest natural priorities, however its accomplished; 2) dolphins are hella smart, just like us, and if anything, it goes to show that smart species with idle time can devise some pretty wild pastimes.

If a person did half the stuff animals do, no one could look at them the same again.

To compare the lifestyles of a single animal species (humans) with all the others is a fool’s mission. In fact, most animals live fairly predictable, innocuous lives. They have their classic interactions with the world and don’t tend to bother other species-- mainly because it’s not worth their time.

People do some awful things but we are also probably the only species that has members that sympathise with other species above ourselves.

Nonsense. Pretty much all higher social / tribal animals can pretty easily sympathise / empathise with other species, such as our fellow apes, dogs, cetaceans, corvids, elephants, parrots, and even domestic cats.

@fsxylo@sh.itjust.works

Haha, I think maybe I feel you on that.
Filmation worked so much better when it came to shades of comedy & farce, and for me, there was a tonne of understated comedy & farce in He-Man, hearkining back to lots of H-B farce. (never watched Godzilla personally, have no interest at all, sadly or unsadly)

So Filmation to me were mostly disappointing (and again, the damn limited budget) when it came to TAS, but they also had to walk a sort of line, just like Rankin-Bass with The Hobbit, and then the “Return of the King.”

The first one was fairly charming (and the songs were absolutely awesome), based on a children’s book, but the latter?

Yeah, that shizzle just didn’t work for a serious fantasy epic. Okay, I’ll admit it had its points, but Rankin-Bass was so *not* the animation studio to do RotK, other than bringing back the super-charming… Glenn Yarbrough (sp?) as the narrator-singer.