I have not watched them. Again, it is just you that holds this opinion in this thread. So unless you get some more poeple thinking Browder's portrayal was the suck, I suggest you desist from this argument.
That would be the bandwagon fallacy, and I fail to see how you've acquired a representative number of people to solidify your argument. But I'm more to willing to agree that we harbor different opinions on the matter, it's of no importance.
No, it really doesn't matter much. I might just as well go "PEACEKEEPER ALL BLACK RARGH". Unless you can illustrate a point here this does not matter.
That would be another questionable decision on the part of the producers of the show: leather-clad space nazis -- a familiar trope. But I have no interest in pursuing that one in this thread.
No, she had no back-up plan. As evidenced by her reaction when Chrichton pulled it. Besides, she had earlier had to flee, suggesting she was powerless against the Grudeks. And her fight with Chiana was pitiful.
If she was Sebacean, Luxan, Human or Nebari she would have already bled to death and/or been in a state of shock, bordering on death. Instead she took out the Nebari in two kicks.
No, not really, considering nobody ever explained a damned thing to her.
That was shown on screen you mean?
All of those are excuse for acting arrogant and stupid which I am not buying.
Perhaps her proximity to lesser beings has that effect on the Kalish?
Again, you are the only one who thinks Moya should have carried weapons.
She was already carrying weapons: the prowler, the cloaking ship and a defensive shield. A couple of space mines wouldn't have mattered.
Like not overheating in the midst of a battle?
In your opinion, of which you are of course alone. Heck, even the actress portraying Sikozu thinks so.
Actors/actresses typically tow the line, in order to better sell the product.
Dread Not wrote:
You're seriously going to get bent out of shape over that scene?
I take it you're now referring to my laughter fit?
Do you not understand how people actually behave? He's speaking to him with barely restrained contempt. He's spent a year torn from his family while being hunted by the maniac sitting in front of him. He's been tortured half to death and the woman he cared for was recently shot before his eyes. But clearly if his character shows some vulnerability it's because the writers are trying to be soooo different.
When such vulnerability is felt, one would normally retreat to a place of solitude, or perhaps a close confidant, in order to solicit commiseration. The hallway in front of Crais' cell does not enter into the equation. And 'guy talk' would not be suitable as a social pretext.
Don't tell me, Martin Riggs sobbing in loneliness over his wife's death and sticking a gun in his mouth was the Lethal Weapon writers trying to be different.
I wouldn't even have thought to compare the two. And rewatching the scene in question I now recall why it was so ludicrous. It was a shameless plot device to get both of them to work together.
Captain Picard breaking down into tears while recounting his experiences of being assimilated to his brother was the TNG writers trying to be different. All of the attempts to write relatable heroic characters with some depth has nothing to do with trying to tell a good story and everything to do with trying to be "different."
Perhaps if you had chosen the scene where Picard starts to bawl/rage/whatever in First Contact, I would have agreed to some similarities. In that it was both out of character, and ludicrous.
It's a 4 fucking minute difference! The season 1 episodes are 48 minutes long and the rest are 44, and there are 44 minute versions of season 1 that cut out redundant scenes. This isn't the massive shift you're trying to paint it as. Why do you assume that action sequences in later seasons were not shortened along with everything else?
Nice try, but it wasn't 4 minutes (some episodes were 52 minutes, whereas some episodes in the later seasons could be as short as 40), nor was it meant to signify a 'massive shift'. Changes were made, some for the better, other for the worse.
Oh for the sake of fuck. Perhaps his IASA jumpsuits and khaki pants became ruined after a year's worth of dangerous encounters. Perhaps he'd never worn leather pants before for fear of mockery from other humans and once he tried them on to masquerade as a peacekeeper he never wanted to wear anything else. Perhaps he did what most people do and adjusted his attire to fit in.
Changes in the appearance of a character at the start of a new season, when accompanied with additional changes in the format, are not something easily ignored.
What treachery? Where he puts Crais in the Aurora chair after stumbling upon evidence that he's a traitor? Where he assumes command of Crais' ship because he's clearly unfit for command? Where he plans to kill Natira after she had attempted to sabotage his ship? Might I remind you that Scorpious does NOT betray Sikozu until she betrays him? Scorpious is ruthless, not treacherous. He's loyal to those who help him.
He betrayed both the Scarrans and Peacekeepers numerous times, and ran a secret ops facility in a ruthless military hierarchy where backstabbing and duplicity were of the order of the day. And both Natira and Scorpius had cause to distrust each other, as was hinted at in the episode in question. Betrayal is a given.
You're proposing launching mines and missiles out of the cargo bays. Do I really have to explain how useless that is? They would have a better shot sending Aeryn out in her Prowler. And the only time Starburst wasn't "full-proof" was while she was pregnant
The Farscape equivalents to 'mines' and 'missiles'. I'm sure the writers would have found something suitable. And I believe in one episode the Peacekeepers were able to track Moya, despite the starburst mechanism. In another episode starburst would not function at all, as they were in a nebula system (whatever) of some sort.
Yeah, they're going to enter the space of a race that nearly brainwashed them into a life of subservience, in the hopes of finding their super secret rebel group who will hopefully strap some weapons onto Moya out of the goodness of their hearts.
Lovely sentiments, but if the writers would have taken this avenue, I'm sure that they would have written an appropriate story line.
I'll say again, if strapping weapons to the hull of a Leviathan were an easy job, the peacekeepers would have done it. Until season 3 they could barely feed themselves, and even after that Moya being an overall a non-violent being would still not have approved after seeing her son's violent nature.
It's a big universe, perhaps it was simply not economically viable for the Peacekeepers to militarize them in another way. But as you say, they received a substantial amount of wealth at some point, which they could have utilized for equipping suitable armaments. And Moya's sentiments would have been an interesting plot line.
Yeah, she was keeping such a close eye on them that Stark went in the exact opposite direction in search of her and wasn't heard from again until the end of the series. You think the builders would recall Moya if she were no longer under the care of Zhaan but they wouldn't if Moya had a death cannon mounted on her hull? And even if Zhaan were still there, do you think she would approve of weaponizing Moya after pleading that she wouldn't be used as an instrument of war?
Who said anything about a death canon? And I believe it was hinted at that Zhaan was still looking over the vessel.
They DO survive complicated altercations and conflicts. They destroy the Gammak base. They rob and destroy the Shadow Depository. They manage to destroy a command carrier and foil Scorpius' wormhole research. They destroy Katratzi and cripple the Scarrans in the process. They end a fucking interstellar war. What more do you want? For them to sneak in and plant explosives in an entire armada's worth of ships and then blow them all away? Or do you just want them to make it look easy? Because y'know, the heroes waltzing towards victory makes for such great drama.
Fascinating read, but if you would care to look up the line in question, you would see that I had written that they were at their 'strongest' and thus had more striking capability -- a point of observation that is not easily misread. Never did I suggest that they were an elite space-Jihadist movement, with Osama bin Crichton running a pan-galactic terrorist network.
Cameron Mitchell was a shitty character because of shitty writing, not acting. He was a bland and flat with no depth or direction. What do you expect people to say? "Oh I really enjoyed Browder's performance on Farscape but since we played a forgettable character on a show where the writers had long since run out of ideas I guess I didn't actually enjoy Browder's performance on Farscape.
At one point he was looking in the camera.
Christ, you'll whine about anything won't you? How about next you tell us which character's haircut dragged the series down?
You seem to be too emotionally invested in this discussion. And yes, a haircut could mean quite a lot on screen. I need only look to Nicolas Cage and his crazy bird-nest haircuts.
And I guess Luke not wearing his farmer boy pajamas in Empire was evidence that Lucas thought audiences found him boring and that he needed to take his new film in a huuuuuge new direction? Or that Aang's new outfits in season 3 of Avatar were because Aang "started to bore audiences."
Avatar? How old are you again?
Anyway, I believe this discussion has run its course.