ADRz

I did not criticize the whole of Star Trek for "outrageous wokeness". I criticized "Star Trek: Discovery" specifically for it. In fact, the wokeness of this show has undermined so badly, as to be barely watchable...and I love Trek. It is OK to include wokeness as part of a story line. Yes, many Star Trek episodes were morality plays. But various elements supported a story line that made sense. Not so with "Star Trek: Discovery". The wokeness is palpable. Virtually all baddies are men, the main character (around who the whole story revolves) is a black woman, the crew is mostly women and homosexual men or weird sexual persons/hermaphrodites and their exploits/interest take over the story line instead of just being an element in the story line. It is OK to have such elements as part of an involved story line, but when they are the center of the show, I am not sure that I am watching something straight of the Romance Channel or a "Star Trek" show. It is so busy trying to make a comment on the current situation that forgets what it is all about. Overall, I think that the wokeness pendulum has swung all the way to the "incredible" side. Now, all super-heroines must be women and all plots should include gay couples or gay persons. It is getting out of hand. It is so loud, it defeats the message. Just my opinion. I like a good story line; if that includes some woke elements, well fine. But when the whole story is to promote the woke elements, I draw the line!

Unfortunately, I do not agree. I think that this show has been dreadful, from beginning to end. Never mind the outrageous wokeness, one expects this of Hollywood nowadays. It is their new creed. The stuff that makes a sci-fi story compelling were all missing. it was all about feeling and relationships. I was not sure if I were watching something out of the Romance network or a Trek series. There is the sanctimonious Burham (who is the center of everything), the "wet" Saru (who gets to be a baby sitter at the end), the silly Tilly which, in a full wokeness story is elevated to 2nd in command, and many other characters who are, if not outright ridiculous, they are poorly outlined. I would call the show "Romance in the Universe" and leave it at that.

I dislike "Star Trek Discovery". Not intensely, but I do. It is an exceedingly badly written show. Season 3 was totally bad. I was not certain if I were watching a sci-fi show or something out of the romance channel. The show leans heavily of "wokeness". It would have been OK if the stories were excellently written, but most were soporific. The show writers do not know a good story even if it hits them over the head. This thing is bad, really bad!!

This is about as crazy an episode that I have ever seen. In a planet where there were never any humans, humans are devolving!!! There were apparently some neanderthals there at some point. Then, you have a flying serpent with no obvious means of flight (but it flies anyway), You have a super-intelligence that was able to deceive and impregnate "Mother", you have a spaceship that flies through the core of the planet that should be in tens of thousands of degrees and comes out unharmed but it is broken up by the serpent!!! Then, there is another spaceship around....and the kids are alright!!! It feels like Ridley Scott got some pieces of "Alien", threw in some "Prometheus" and lots of crazy ideas (jealous androids). If one was looking for a cohesive story, well, one would not find it there. It seems that the writers were not particularly clear as to what they were doing....how come these androids with substantial technology did not figure out that the plants had radioactive seeds....(bananas are also mildly radioactive but we eat them). The show started with some promise but ended up totally confused and confusing. I expected better!!

What he is doing is unacceptable and HBO should fire him and shut down the program. This is no laughing matter, some of those who may be influenced by Bill may well die of the disease. I was ready to excuse his Islamophobia and other transgressions, but his is way over the line and I have stopped watching his show

But we know that they are not. Young people are dying from this disease, no matter what they think, Even those who survive may have severe health deficits such as scarred lungs and DVT sequelae.

Bill has openly asked people not to comply with the sequester. Considering the harm done by such statements, I think that HBO should fire him immediately. He has repeatedly asked the youth to go out and get infected and now many of them are arriving at hospitals gasping for breath and many have died. I cannot believe that this kind of irresponsibility is not punishable by HBO. One cannot undermine public health and have a prominent show. It is one thing to preach for marijuana use on this program and totally another to incite young people to be infected with Covid-19 and possibly die. I have hardly seen that level of irresponsibility by anybody in a prominent media position

Well, obviously we differ at that. If one uses real people and real events, moving everything to the realms of fantasy destroys most of the narrative sense. One can move the whole event to fantasy making no allusions to real people and I would be happier. It is not as if Alfred the Great is an unknown personality, or that the main battles (Eddington, Tettenhall) are unknown events. If one wants to write fantasy, one should dispense with real characters and historical events. There have been excellent historical fiction books. In these, fictional characters and events are included seamlessly in a historical setting. In other cases, historical fiction just fills the gaps. The "three musketeers" is a good version of the first case; "I Claudius" is a very good example of the latter. In both these cases, the real timeline and real persons are not altered in any way. Sometimes, the dearth of information for a particular period can be used as a devise of providing "alternative" exaplanations. This works great for "Amadeus" for example. Not that much is known for the interaction between Salieri and Mozart, so one could make stuff up; Did Salieri "kill" an exhausted Mozart by allusions to his betrayal of his father? Probably not, but it is a good "play" in a historical setting.

Then they should be portrayed in a galaxy far, far away. Yes, the show did not mention the year of a particular event, but the events it portrays have definitive dates associated with them: Alfred' accession to the throne, Guthrum's invasion, the battle of Eddington, the battle of Tettenhall, Aethelflaed's election as the Queen of Mercia, etc. All of these are real people and real events. The show would only work if somebody is totally ignorant of history. Well, some people are and this may just work fine for them, but a good number of others are not. For those who know that the battle of Eddington was fought in 878 and that Tettenhall was fought in 910, well, having a yound Uthred in both of these destroys any attempt of a sensible narrative. It has brought the show from the realm of historical fiction to one of fantasy!!! In fact, whereas the previous seasons were acceptably based on reality (not wholly, but acceptably), season 4 was mostly fantasy, including the capture of Winchester by Sitric and the subsequent incomprehensible siege (in which nothing made sense). I was ready to overlook various points, that Alfred's widow had died even before the events of season 4, that Aethelstan was a teenager at the time of the battle of Tettenhall and that Edward was then middle aged, but bringing the whole show to fantasy was not OK by me!!!

Uthred giving up the throne was very badly done and wholly unbelievable. If we were to move to the Aethelflaed coronation, there were many other routes that the writers could have taken. The one chosen was fully unconvincing and a bit ridiculous, if you ask me. Any show can "condense" the timeline if it makes up fictional events (although the term historical fiction would not apply). Why have real events (such as the battles of Eddington and Tettenhall) and real people, such as Alfred the Great and Edward I, if one then "condenses" the timeline? It makes little sense. A good historical fiction interposes fictional characters and events within a known historical framework. It would not have been bad to have Uthred as an aging combatant in the battle of Tettenhall. It would have been far more believable than what was put on screen. Furthermore, even if one makes up totally fictional events, these events can only have a dramatic effect if they are "authentic". The capture of Winchester by Sitric and the successive siege was badly, badly done. None of it made much sense. After breaching the walls, the Anglo-Saxons stop to negotiate a deal that ends up surrending north Mercia to the Vikings!!! It just did not make any, any sense!!!

Lots of bad writing, I would say. I have not read the books (the Saxon Chronicles) on which the TV series is based but I do not think that it is as bad as the show. It would have been great if the story had showed Uthred as grey old warrior in the battle of Tettenhall, his last battle so to speak. The 4th season has actually spanned a period of at least 12 years, from 902 to about 915 (Aethelflead is still alive). I think that it would be comical if the 5th season centers on Aethelstan's conquest of Northumbria (and it may be), because Uthred would be almost 80 years old by then!!!!

I have watched Season 4 of the "Last Kingdom" and I was really disappointed. Not necessarily with the story but with the script and the development of the show. It has now entered into the world of magic. Uthred is a young man when he fights in the battle of Eddington in 878 CE. However, he also plays a pivotal role in the battle of Tettenhall (the main event in Season 4) which was fought in 910 CE. Uthred -had it been a real person- must have been in his late 50's at that time. However, he is portrayed as relatively young (not even seriously middle-aged). So, the unaging Uthred is a big problem. From episode 4 onward, the story evolves not in a logical way. Uthred supposedly accepts Edward's invitation to take the throne of Mercia, but resigns then in favor of Aethelflead. This makes absolutely no sense!! Why not take the throne and marry Aethelflead. She was a widow and in love with him. Of course, this would have been a rewriting of history. History did record the Athelflead became the Queen of Mercia and ruled until 918, when she died. I guess that the writers of the script did not want to create an "alternate history" but the whole story with Uthred makes absolutely no sense. Then, you have the totally imaginary sack of Winchester by Sigtryggr (or historical Sitric) which, of course, never happened and which was resolved in a totally incomprehensible manner. The Anglosaxons manage to breach the walls an enter the city but then stop to negotiate!! what?? This made absolutely no sense. Who is writing these scripts???

A number of things did not work for me in Season 3. The conflict between Uthred and Alfred does not make sense at all. Uthred loses virtually everything in his dispute with Alfred but when he is given the chance to walk away he becomes an enthusiastic supporter of Edward, for no reason that I can tell and against all logic. Why all the "strum and drag", I wonder. Alfred's portrayal in the show is a very bad departure from the real Alfred. In many ways, it was him that laid the foundations of the Anglosaxon kingdom. His reforms were many and effective. Again, the script had to create a conflict between Alfred and Uthred. It was not convincing, and, at the end, both these characters suffered. The totally fictional part of the story that of Ragnar's interaction with Uthred, was totally unconvincing. In the first place, considering that Uthred was somewhat invested in the maintenance of Wessex, what was he doing joining Ragnar? This hardly computes. This is another conflict that did not really work very well in the script. It would have been far more plausible for Uthred to stay out of the conflict in a remote area of Mercia than to decide to join a band of Vikings planning to attack Wessex. This was all so weird.

Overall, the Last kingdom is far more respectful of history than the "Vikings". It occurs at a definitive time in history and utilizes historical characters, although the protagonist is not one of them. In addition, battles are more accurately presented, as do period costumes, hair styles and armor. I do not want to overdo this, because there are many divergences from "reality" -at least as we know it- but it is a better version of events than "Vikings".

What really disturbed me in the show is the total departure from any kind of historical fact. It is OK to fill in gaps in history and invent interesting characters, but the show started with the mythical Ragnar, provided some kind of explanation for his actions, dealt with the Viking attacks along the British coast but progressively departed from any history that makes sense. Rollo gets to be a contemporary of Ragnar and his sons, although they were likely 60 years apart. Ivar showed little interest for Norway, spending most of his time in Britain and, mainly, in Ireland. Bjorn Ironside got his arse kicked by the Moors and barely escaped with this life, the end of which is hardly recorded. The battles for Kattejak were a joke. Despite the place having fortifications, none seemed interested in using these fortifications. The story telling has been incredibly lax in the last two seasons.

It all depends on what you call "history". If "history" is the telling of notable events that have created the modern world, then virtually all of it happened in Europe, Asia and North Africa. For all intends and purposes, the "New World" had little to no contribution to the modern world (save a few plants and animals). Of course, societies emerged and disappeared in the Americas, but their influence and contribution to the present day world is virtually nil. The reasons for that are multiple. I think that the pendulum has swung too much the other way. The American Indians have gone from savages to noble human beings but we forget that they prayed against each other with unparalleled ferocity. In fact, even the occasional brutality of the conquest of the American frontier cannot sometimes compared with the horrific acts of Indians against other Indians. The Sioux were as brutal a conqueror as anybody else in that game. Thus, it is important to have a balanced view. History is not the past. History is actually the present and its evolution. The past is irredeemably lost. Thus, if we are studying history to understand the present, then the historical events in Europe, Asia and North Africa are the areas that we need to concentrate on.

I think that Bill needs to do his homework much better the next time around. When he discussed Putin's invitation to Trump to attend the May Parade 2020 in Moscow, he stated that this parade was to celebrate Communism and he stressed the point repeatedly. I guess that Bill did not get the memo that Russia is no longer communist and has not been since 1991. In fact, the Communist Party of Russia has great difficulties in remaining legal. The current political party in government, "All Russia Peoples' Front" is a center-right party (mostly right with some social welfare policies) with overt nationalist leanings. The May parade is not to celebrate Communism, but the surrender of the German Reich after the "Great Patriotic War". I believe that the May 2020 parade would mark the 75th anniversary of this event and it would be attended by a number of heads of state. Considering the sacrifices of the Russian people during that war, I do not think that it is for anybody to attend the parade and the accompanying memorial events.

You are right, in a way. If Bill is the "Forgotten Man", it is so by choice. He does not have to be. Sometimes it is OK to point out certain weaknesses in your side's arguments. There is no harm in that. What is harmful is embracing obvious falsehoods without much evidence. Bill has some pet causes and he never lets up, whatever the evidence. For example, he is convinced of the malevolence of Islam. He hardly understands what actions generated "militant Islam"; he despises the Palestinians (probably because they are Muslim, although a very high proportion of them are Christian); he fails to understand that it is the choice of the audience who is selected as a speaker. Sure, audiences should be open to all kinds of ideas, but, at the end, it is their choice who to hear. He has taken his rejection by UC Berkeley too much to heart, to the degree he felt as sense comradeship with Milo!!! Amazing.

I understand. His reply to Prager was so weak, it was pathetic. Basically, he let Prager take over the show, which was amazing. It is OK to talk about conservatives living in an alternate facts bubble, but when he encounters one, he does not know what to do. Thankfully, the other guest tried to help matters somewhat.

I agree. Bill seems to ruled mostly by his own feelings and prejudices. Sometimes, he likes people for some weird reason, possibly some similarity in their experiences. He seems to enjoy people who are "outside the mainstream" and rejected by the "liberal establishment", thus his fawning over the anti-vaxxer doctor or Milo!!! I think that his rejection by the Berkeley students is still hurting

I agree. It is OK to discuss various ideas and fears, but this should happen in a balanced way in which opposing views can always be heard. What was not heard in the discussion is that epidemiological studies do not support any "contribution" by vaccines to the rates of congenital cognitive disorders as these seem to occur in the same frequency in the vaccinated and non vaccinated populations. Thus, Bill Maher did everybody a great disservice by hyping up fears that have no basis in reality. He seemed to have decided that his own prejudices are more important than scientific evidence.