Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9563578" data-attributes="member: 18">What would you consider a correct resolution there? The character whose touch has pheromones doesn't seem to realize how impactful they are, or necessarily that he's even generating them, because he doesn't generate them at all times. He's also concerned when he finally realizes how much of a problem they're causing, and actively helps to resolve the problem. Should he be shamed, punished or imprisoned for his biology? That doesn't sound very Star Trek to me. I don't remember any "murder/suicide" bit and even re-read the detailed episode breakdown to see if I could find it, but I couldn't, so that might be conflating this with a similar incident in another show (it's pretty much a sci-fi staple - literally the third episode of TNG was like this - The Naked Now).That said, it's definitely one of the weaker episodes and doesn't have a clear "point" (again, like The Naked Now and similar episodes of various shows, but I've seen better takes on this)!Yeah he's being a twat, but that's the point, and as you ragequit, you didn't get to see the resolution of him realizing he was being a twat and that his behaviour was inappropriate. Which is fine, you never have to watch anything, but if you watch a show about a murder and the criminal looks like he's getting away with it, and you turn the show off on the grounds that it's "pro-murderer" or something, that's being a little silly imo.I do think in general MacFarlane is a little too kind to his own character there, but that does stop being a thing entirely eventually.I don't think that's really relevant? No-one is complaining about his singing, unless I have someone blocked lol.Possibly. There is some '70s stuff for sure (the Ramones and Journey in the episode discussed above, for example). It's the 40s/50s stuff that seems weirder!Hey don't put words I'd never say in my mouth! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> There's definitely great '70s music out there!But despite that, the '70s was just absolutely rife with totally naff music and bands and stars. There was cool stuff too but my god, the balance was towards extreme naff-itude. Even a lot of '70s stuff people claim is "classic" is bit questionable, in a way '60s stuff claimed to be classic generally isn't.For those not sufficiently from the south of England or not of the right age, naff means tacky, tasteless, accidentally campy in a bad way, and so on. There isn't a decade in human history which was more inherently naff that the 1970s! The music, the clothes, the architecture, the furnishings, I could go on. I mean the 1980s and 1990s and the '00s all gave it a fair shot but they just never approach the sheer depth of embarrassment and tastelessness the 1970s could muster.</blockquote>

Verification