Jammer's Reviews

Comment Browser

Clear | RSS for this | Bottom

Total Found: 21,673 (Showing 1-25)

Next »Page 1 of 867
Aaron - Mon, Sep 22, 2014, 11:03pm (USA Central)
Re: TNG S1: The Big Goodbye

I always get very frustrated at Cmdr Riker when I watch this one. He knows that the [Aliens of the week whose name I have forgotten] are very picky about language and protocol, yet he keeps talking to them!! At one point, he opens a channel and starts with "We demand..." before being cut off. Not smart.
They should have just stayed silent until Captain Picard and co. were freed.

You can tell it's an early holodeck episode as Geordi is concerned that if they simply shut off the holodeck then all the real people inside will disappear along with the characters. Scary new tech!
Eli - Mon, Sep 22, 2014, 10:40pm (USA Central)
Re: ENT S1: The Andorian Incident

Above it should read: [the ending] reveals that the Vulcans have a more complex relationship with spirituality and technology than initially indicated. (with not between)

Also it should say "Vulcans in the second paragraph not Vulcnas."

I've said this before, but it would be great if we were allowed to edit our posts.
Eli - Mon, Sep 22, 2014, 10:36pm (USA Central)
Re: ENT S1: The Andorian Incident

The surprise ending is interesting in that it reveals that the Vulcans have a more complex relationship between spirituality and technology than initially indicated.

However, I think it's reckless for Archer to antagonize the Vulcans. It is not his business whether or not the Vulcans are telling the truth to the Andorians. He should mind his own affairs. Further, the Vulcans are their allies. If they're not perfect, so be it. Even with these deceptions revealed, it's not as though the Vulcnas have committed some horrible atrocity. If it weren't for the treaty that is vaguely referred to in this episode, it wouldn't necessarily be immoral in any way to have a secret facility.

Anyway, the Andorians we see here are thugs with no obvious sense of ethics. The Vulcans not only support the humans, but appear to have a more developed moral code in their society. They don't beat and torture their prisoners and threaten other alien woman sexually (as the Andorians do in this episode). They appear to desire peace and rational thinking.

If nothing else, you shouldn't cut off your nose despite your face.
NCC-1701-Z - Mon, Sep 22, 2014, 9:29pm (USA Central)
Re: DS9 S5: In Purgatory's Shadow

Bashir must have been really tired that day to have fallen asleep in his uniform ;)

One of Trek's best cliffhangers of all time.

And honestly, is there any character on this series Garak does *not* interact well with? Worf and Garak in the runabout = classic.
NCC-1701-Z - Mon, Sep 22, 2014, 9:22pm (USA Central)
Re: TNG S4: The Best of Both Worlds, Part II

Speaking of good Trek cliffhangers, I can't believe I forgot to mention DS9's "In Purgatory's Shadow". Now THAT was one which really sent chills down my spine at the end.
NCC-1701-Z - Mon, Sep 22, 2014, 9:19pm (USA Central)
Re: TNG S4: The Best of Both Worlds, Part II

Riker: "Based on our latest communication, we can assume that the Borg survived the fleet's attack."
Me: "Understatement of the year, dude."

I think this is one of the few Trek second parts that ever came close to surpassing the potential set by the first part; the closest competitors immediately coming to mind are VOY's "Scorpion Part II" and DS9's "Time to Stand". Trek cliffhangers usually nail part 1 and falter on part 2, to varying degrees. In general, though, setting up a good cliffhanger is relatively easy compared to actually resolving it in a satisfying manner.

Classic episode, and boy does Ron Jones' soundtrack make this two parter. BoBW would not have been nearly as thrilling without his soundtrack to match.
Aytri - Mon, Sep 22, 2014, 5:00pm (USA Central)
Re: TNG S5: A Matter of Time

I like this episode a lot and thought Rasmussen was hilarious in an annoying-kind-of-way. I think Robin Williams would have overacted it too much, though it'd be cool to see him on TNG. Lines like "La Forge remained below..." and "Buck up, crewman. You'll be telling your grandchildren you were at Penthara IV", and the way he says he's from New Jersey, always get a laugh out of me. That he's making this fairly routine Star Trek mission out to be some universe-changing epic cracks me up too.

It's not one of my favorite episodes, but it's one I bring up a lot if me and friends are watching random Trek episodes on a drinking night and want something light and funny.
$G - Mon, Sep 22, 2014, 1:16pm (USA Central)
Re: DS9 S5: Fifth Season Recap

I'm totally with Jammer that Season 5 is a pretty strong collection of episodes for DS9. But I don't think it's the pinnacle of the series.

Here's what's awesome: S5 includes the best two-parter (Purgatory/Inferno) and the best sci-fi episode not titled "The Visitor" (Children of Time). It also does a very nice job intertwining the Klingon/Dominion/Cardassian/Bajoran/Maquis threads together through the various episodes. More than anything, S5 shows off how good the writers are at plotting this series. The cause-and-effect is really, really impressive.

More awesome: Odo, Sisko, and Kira. They probably get the best focus this year among the main cast. The writers have added a lot of nuance to these three which has made for some series-defining moments (Odo in "Things Past" and "Children of Time", Sisko in "Rapture" and "Call to Arms", Kira in "Ties of..." and "Darkness and Light").

Worf gets some nice moments as well - particularly in the Purgatory/Inferno two-parter, which is probably the best Worf moment in either TNG or DS9 up to this point. Quark gets his best episode with "Business as Usual" too. Maybe the best Quark episode?

It's also interesting to watch Bashir (who gets an "okay" episode to himself in "Doctor Bashir, I Presume"), who really has been becoming a lot more sombre. He still has his charm, but the actor's performances really show that it's been sobered by a lot of what's happened on the series (war, "The Quickening", Dominion imprisonment, and his secret coming out). There's just something about Siddig's scenes now that drives home the stress and weight hanging over our favourite frontier doctor.

I also love all the secondary characters coming into the mix - Ziyal, Martok, and Weyoun - while more layers get added to a lot of ones who have been around since the beginning - Garak, Dukat, Nog, Jake, and Winn. Even Rom and Leeta have their moments! The scope of the show is expanding and the station is becoming that much more bustling and interesting because of it.

But while S5 is clearly the most ambitious set of episodes so far in the series, the execution doesn't always match up. I think S4 is stronger overall in that a lot of its episodes hold together more tightly than S5's, even if they aren't as ambitious. Episodes like S5's "Rapture" and "Things Past" are contenders for top entries of the series, but have elements about them that hold them back JUST a tad. "The Ship" is a great idea too, but also isn't as harrowing as it wants to be.

I also find the two Eddington episodes to be a little bit anticlimactic to the Maquis story. I like plot-wise what happens, but I was less enthusiastic about Eddington becoming the face of the Maquis. I never really enjoyed his rivalry with Sisko, who routinely has better verbal sparring with Dukat. Don't get be wrong - neither of the Eddington episodes came anywhere close to being BAD, but they didn't really satisfy me as conclusions to a storyline that's been building since S2.

A couple more criticisms:

-I wish Odo had more time as a solid. I don't see any reason why he needed to be changed back as quick as he did (although it needed to happen at the latest for "Children of Time"). "A Simple Investigation" would have felt more meaningful in the long run too.

-Too much comedy bunched up. Out of the first seven episodes, three are "Par'mach," "Tribbles," and "Let He Who Is Without Sin...". Two out of those three are good episodes, at least (guess which one isn't). "The Begotten" and "Doctor Bashir" are also both stapled to weak-ish comic B-plots.

-Forgettable episodes. S4 had two or three weak episodes, but I'd say everything else is recommended (to varying degrees, obviously). In S5, "The Assignment," "The Ascent," and "Empok Nor" are all pointless. "A Simple Investigation" and "Soldiers of the Empire" both feel like S5 stories trapped in S1-calibre episodes. Both Odo and Martok deserve better approaching the final third of the series' run like this.

Like I said, S5 is pretty sweet. It has a LOT going for it and aims pretty high at a lot of points. A lot of its better episodes are great, series-defining moments, but not all of them are as rock-solid as 45-minute stories. Just a few tweaks would make it amazing. I'm looking forward to Season 6!
$G - Mon, Sep 22, 2014, 10:43am (USA Central)
Re: DS9 S5: Call to Arms

This is a very strong episode and a great setup for the first chunk of the next season. The episode itself sets up a bit slow, but I think that becomes a much smaller issue with the knowledge that it's part 1 of a 7-part arc (or part 2 of an 8-part arc if you include "In the Cards" (which you should!)).

3-1/2 stars for me. A great way to start the best 6 hours of consecutive Trek since Wrath of Khan/Search for Spock/Voyage Home. Who needs the TNG movies?
$G - Mon, Sep 22, 2014, 10:22am (USA Central)
Re: DS9 S5: In the Cards

Oh, and one question for those who might know:

Where was Dax? You'd think she'd have a role in an episode about staying positive and getting Sisko an awesome gift! Farrell is most fun to watch when she's having a good time with the rest of the crew.
$G - Mon, Sep 22, 2014, 10:17am (USA Central)
Re: DS9 S5: In the Cards

I like this one. It's fun to see the NoJay Consortium in action again (my favourite moment still being the stembolts from, I think?, season 1). It probably shouldn't work this well, but it's well paced and satisfying. I think it's neat how this episode reversed the A- and B-plot setup. Usually the comedy gets stapled to a heavier A-plot and sometimes comes off too transparently as comic relief. Not here, though, because it's a nice tour of the station from the point of view of two guys who aren't necessarily keeping tabs on the political moves going on around them.

I also like that the Bajor-Dominion negotiations stayed civil. No assassinations, no protests - not everything has to be as dramatic as that. It keeps things light enough that the focus of whether or not Bajor should sign the pact leaves the impression it should and sets up the next episode nicely. A genuinely creative move by the writers with this one. A strong 3 stars.
$G - Mon, Sep 22, 2014, 9:52am (USA Central)
Re: DS9 S5: Blaze of Glory

I'm not huge on this episode even though I feel like I should be.

Part of it is that I never really warmed up to the Eddington storyline. I really enjoyed "For the Cause" but that episode also had the Kasidy drama going for it as well. Eddington's plot was also a bit more palatable (to me) there. His digs at Sisko were well done and I believed him as a member of the Maquis.

But the "For the Uniform" and "Blaze of Glory" arc is just too lukewarm for me. They became more about *Eddington* than the Maquis. I guess that's partially what drives Sisko in all of it, and I suppose it was good to finally put a face to the enemy, but it also ties the Maquis too closely to this one character. Suddenly the Maquis effort all comes attached to Eddington's bravado and sense of theatricality and they seem written a little too much for the benefit of a couple of climactic episodes than for the satisfaction of the series-long arc. Compared to the Klingons, Bajorans, Cardassians, and Dominion, they just don't seem to have the same range of characters that other antagonists do. Then Eddington dies in a scene that almost seems like its a given. It didn't really impact me the way it should have.

All that said, this is still a fair episode on its own merits because of some decent scenes and tension. I like how it hammers home how the Maquis have affected the Alpha Quadrant. The writers began them as victims, turned them to aggressors and then led them completely to ruin - a nice, dynamic arc that fits in well with the stories of DS9's other players. Sisko has a great line about how the Maquis pushed the Cardassians right into the arms of the Dominion, a visceral line that both gave me a chill and showed off how well plotted DS9 as a series really is.

3 stars for me, but with an asterisk. It works on its own as a decent episode of this series, but never really feels like the climax it wants to be (and should be).
Robert - Mon, Sep 22, 2014, 9:11am (USA Central)
Re: TNG S5: The Outcast

Also, to chime into the other discussion.... everyone is a sum of their genetics AND their experiences. If I were flipped to gay I'd have had a different set of experiences and would be a very different person. That's way more tweaking of the genome than I will EVER be comfortable with.
Robert - Mon, Sep 22, 2014, 8:58am (USA Central)
Re: TNG S5: The Outcast

@Andy's Friend - Most adoption research these days believes that you should eventually tell your kids that they are adopted. I'm not entirely sure that your point that kids who are a different color or could not have been biologically reproduced* are necessarily at much worse risk

"You don’t just get adopted and live happily ever after."

Some people do (I happen to know one who was adopted outside her race and is doing awesome, but anecdotes make lousy statistics). But more to the point.... there is no other choice. These kids have already been given up. The choice is not be adopted or be raised by your responsible biological parents. Obviously that's preferable, it's be awesome if kids never ended up in an orphanage, but it's hardly reality.

h t t p ://www.healthychildren.org/English/family-life/family-dynamics/adoption-and-foster-care/Pages/When-to-Tell-Your-Child-About-Adoption.aspx

"If your child is already of school age and has not been told that he is adopted, you need to talk with him about it, as early during this time of life as possible.

Adoption should not be a secret. Every youngster needs to have an honest understanding of his origin. Adopted children who have not been told seem to sense that somehow they are different; this nagging intuition can in­fluence their self-image. "
Brennan - Mon, Sep 22, 2014, 5:04am (USA Central)
Re: DS9 S2: Paradise

The ending is such a stretch. You don't think some people maybe WANTED to be engineers and not farmers? Why is being a farmer and having a community better than exploring the stars? It over-simplifies this issue way to much and almost implies people would rather work really hard and go back to their roots instead of trying to make actual progress and enjoy the comforts their society has earned.

The idea that no one there was infuriated over the cut-off from their, what I can imagine to at least be a few, families is completely a joke. Plus the lack of justice for an obnoxious character, other than a few lines of dialogue explaining that she will be punished, is so unrewarding, and leaves me just wanting this episode to turn into an orbital bombardment of that village. I would just love to see O'Brian vaporize a few villagers, beam out, followed with a volley of torpedoes. Just get the kids out first, not their fault the parents are impossibly dense.
Seryn - Mon, Sep 22, 2014, 12:07am (USA Central)
Re: DS9 S3: Past Tense, Part I

People around 2008 to 2010 particularly picked up on how eerily close "Past Tense" gets to our social issues now. Yet those commenting most recently have decided to argue over the realism of the episodes, when our social issues have gotten worse (the unemployment rate going down does not mean that it will keep going down and evidence to things getting worse before they get better is prevalent on even the mainstream news networks). The entire Cold War was based on walls both real and metaphorical; are the walls going back up?

The appeal to the audience is simply a case of whether one enjoys entertainment over intellectuality, a line DS9 cuddles against, usally making everyone happy. It deviated from the line in this case.
Clarky - Sun, Sep 21, 2014, 10:20pm (USA Central)
Re: Confessions of a Closet Trekkie

Ah! So there is hope for me yet, even if I can remember begging my parents to stay up till 8pm to watch STO, on TV, in black and white!
zzybaloobah - Sun, Sep 21, 2014, 10:15pm (USA Central)
Re: DS9 S6: You Are Cordially Invited

I'm surprised so few commented on Alexander. He is *painful* to watch. He's over-the-top inept; and worse, he seems OK with it. Maybe a human could be content to be the fool, but a Klingon warrior?
He needs to stumble into a heroic death, and quickly....
Andy's Friend - Sun, Sep 21, 2014, 4:37pm (USA Central)
Re: TNG S5: The Outcast

@Peremensoe #3: Here’s an answer on the matter of adoption:

All your arguments are valid ones. And for the record: your understanding is not correct. I know for a fact ― this is a matter of statistics ― that being adopted *by anyone* is harmful to *some* of the children. I therefore consider that there are ethical problems concerning gay adoption just like any other adoption.

I should have written this from the very beginning; that was my fault.

In one of my posts to Dave in NC I gave a specific example of how many third-world children in Western Europe suffer various types of psychological problems because they feel different. It might be argued that it would thus be better ― more ethical ― for say, Italian or French parents to adopt a child from Romania rather than Korea or Sri Lanka, as the likelihood of that happening would be much smaller. This is an example of the ethical issues I’m talking about.

Other adopted children suffer simply because they realize they’re adopted. This is of course a universal problem, i.e., it wouldn’t matter whether the parents were gay or not.

Some children adopted by gay parents will also suffer. How many? I’m guessing not many. How much wiill they suffer? Hard to tell, but some probably to the point of the typical self-destructive behaviour of those children adopted by straight couples who experience similar psychologic problems.

What I am thus trying to say is that adopting, in itself, is unfortunately connected with various, if mostly small to moderate, degrees of risk of psychological damage to the children. Some of these risks are easier to calculate and thus avoid than others. Some kids just can’t deal with the fact that they’re adopted. We cannot predict which ones. But adopting a child from Uganda in Finland will expose that child to a much, much greater risk of suffering certain issues than adopting a child from the Ukraine.

Unfortunately, there is no way to similarly estimate which children will most likely suffer problems specifically because of being adopted by gays. I believe that risk to be small, and I recognize that it is not the gay couple’s fault in such cases. But the risk exists.

The question is: when kids suffer issues because they can’t handle the fact that they’re adopted, they do just that. It’s an inherent risk that we must be willing to accept if we wish to have an adoption system. Whereas it is unacceptable, in my opinion, to expose a child to higher risks ― such as the examples with Koreans in Sweden or Ugandans in Finland.

*Ideally* there should be no problem in a couple of Finns adopting a Ugandan baby. But when *reality* shows us that that child has a severely higher risk of suffering from psychological side-effects because there are just virtually no blacks in Finland and the child naturally feels different (the symptoms themselves can very different, and can lead to psychoses or neuroses, depending on the personality of the child), I consider it wrong to adopt one ― the parents should choose a child from say, Moldavia instead.

*Ideally*, there should likewise be no problem in a gay couple adopting any child. But the truth is that this is adding another level of uncertainty to the equation. As such, ethical logic tells me that we have a dilemma: should we, for the sake of the few percent who actually develop some psychologic problems specifically because of this, not allow it? Should we allow that concern for a few to prevent the many from living a happy life adopted by gays? It’s an ethical dilemma in the best tradition of Star Trek: do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? This is what I meant.

Adopting is a risky business. When the kids find out, most of them have to work out the problem that their parents aren’t really their parents. Most of them deal with it just fine. But some don’t. You can’t ignore that.

In this aspect, children adopted by gay couples are of course better off, because they cannot obviously be the children of two men or two women, and they will know that from a much earlier age and thus in the majority of cases have accepted the fact that they’re adopted much sooner. However, at present we simply don’t know enough about how growing up with a gay couple affects the psyche of the kids, and how many or how few of them develop problems specifically because of the fact. As I said, I believe that few will. But this raises the question: is a few a few too many?

So therefore, yes, I consider gays adopting as irresponsible as the Finnish straight couple who chooses to adopt a baby from Korea. It’s gambling with other people’s psychological well-being. And regardless of the odds, that should just not be allowed...

...but on the other hand, we also have to consider the alternatives for the children. Chances are the kids will be happy being adopted. But if not, is being a depressed child in Western Europe better than being a child labourer in some third-world country? The scenarios are many. So are the ethical considerations.

It’s merely because of this that I give serious thought to the issue of adoption. Being a parent, you know that dealing with children is not all as simple and easy as some people out there seem to think it is. Even in Scandinavia adopted children suffer many more problems than the average child. You don’t just get adopted and live happily ever after.

Finally, we also have a very fundamental question: is having a child a human right? Can anyone just say: ”Hey, I want a kid” and fill a requisition form? Many straight people who are irresponsible do have children. But does invoking that entitle anyone ― a single person, for instance ― to a child? Because that places children in a category dangerously close to a product.

So as you can see, there are many ethical considerations. And this is want I meant: I have ethical considerations about gay adoption. Just like any adoption. We're talking about human beings. How could there not be ethical considerations involved? I cannot believe that I in a Star Trek forum would need to explain this.

Anyway, as I said, in the majority of cases ― any types of cases ― the children grow up just fine. We normally accept the reality that is given to us; that’s how people survive in hell-holes plagued by war and poverty in the third world. A child adopted by Data would probably get used to growing up with an android.

Consider that. Is Data alive? Is he sentient? We’ve seen him care for Spot. We’ve seen him in command of the flagship of the Federation. We've seen him create Lal. Should Data be allowed to adopt a human child?
Victoria G - Sun, Sep 21, 2014, 4:02pm (USA Central)
Re: VOY S7: Drive

This reminds me of The Great Race, when Tony Curtis stopped his car just before the Eiffel Tower to propose to Natalie Wood. Except then it did not save their lives.
Andy's Friend - Sun, Sep 21, 2014, 3:02pm (USA Central)
Re: TNG S5: The Outcast

@Peremensoe #2: just to answer your specific question:

” Would you "still be you" if your genes had been flipped to make you gay?”

Yes, I would still be me if all my parents had done had been making me like guys instead of girls. I wouldn’t be quite the same me, but I would be essentially the same ― and the present me wouldn’t give a frak, as he would never have existed.

This reminds me of that extremely imbecile DS9 episode, ”Children of Time”. In that episode, there is no ethical question whatsoever: the moment the Defiant leaves the planet, those people down there won’t merely cease to exist: they will *never* have existed. There is no dilemma whatsoever. The script manipulates its (less attentive, or more gullible, if you will) audience with various smokescreen maneouvres, and tries to create an ethical dilemma that simply does not exist: they are *not* killing 8,000 colonists by leaving. Sadly, that episode makes the DS9 crew remember them: the correct thing to do would be to make them forget, and let them only be remembered by the audience. This is one of the reasons VOY’s ”Course: Oblivion” is a far, far superior episode, with a truly tragic dimension.

Similarly in your scenario. If my parents had chosen to give me purple eyes and white hair, and made me hate cheese and olives and love guys instead of girls, no, it wouldn’t be the present me ― but the alternate me wouldn’t give a frak. He would be him, and be perfectly happy that way. And who I am to say that I’m better than him?
Andy's Friend - Sun, Sep 21, 2014, 2:58pm (USA Central)
Re: TNG S5: The Outcast

@Peremensoe #1: thanks for your comment, which opens up for interesting talks. Here’s my first, very short answer:

”is *your* whole identity...based on your sexuality? Your rhapsodizing about the joy and beauty of het sex suggests it's not irrelevant.”

I was not in any way rhapsodizing about the joy and beauty of sex, I was rhapsodizing about something completely different: the birth of new life, unaided by technology. I was writing about the absolutely wondrous thing that the natural conception of a child is.

So read again: “creating new life, unassisted by technology, that is, magically, a part of ourselves and the very man or woman we love.”

This is not about the sex act, but the very creation of life. I was writing about the end, not the means.
SlackerInc - Sun, Sep 21, 2014, 2:43pm (USA Central)
Re: VOY S2: Basics, Part I

I have to agree that obviously it was foolhardy to go try to rescue this baby. But I think we have to forgive that, because nearly every iteration of every science fiction or action adventure show or movie involves a lot of "this is an extreme risk just to save one person, but we're heroic types and that's what we do" type stuff. I'm cool with someone making something that moves away from this trope, but as of the mid-'90s especially, it was par for the course.

And as a lot of others have also said, it was a suspenseful and fun episode as long as you swallow that much. My wife, who is not even much of a science fiction fan but watches with me and our daughter as (I had always thought, anyway) a good sport, is the most anxious of the three of us to hurry up and watch the next episode!

As for the Kazon space thing: If it takes eight years to move through Federation space (how do we know this, anyway?), I think we can forgive it taking a few months for the Kazons. Let's just assume that the heart of their territory is closer to the Alpha Quadrant than where the Voyager originally got moved; when the Voyager first encountered Kazons, they were at the farthest edge of their range, the farthest away from the Alpha Quadrant. If that's the case, it could be reasonable to still be near the heart of their territory a few months later.
Boreals - Sun, Sep 21, 2014, 8:16am (USA Central)
Re: ENT S1: Broken Bow

Enterprise is my favorite Trek series. I love the premise of humanity taking its first steps into the galaxy. My wife, who is not at all interested in scifi, actually enjoyed Broken Bow. The theme song is uplifting and hopeful, and speaks of our potenial as individuals and as a species. Is the show perfect? No. But it's a lot of fun, espevially for someone who isn't a Trekker.
Gskunk - Sun, Sep 21, 2014, 7:35am (USA Central)
Re: ENT S1: Civilization

I guess T'Pol is to this show what Worf was to in TNG...the crewmember who says the reasonable thing and immediately gets shouted down by others who need the plot to get going.
Next »Page 1 of 867
Copyright © 1994-2014, Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of any review or article on this site is prohibited. Star Trek (in all its myriad forms), Battlestar Galactica, and Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc., NBC Universal, and Tribune Entertainment, respectively. This site is in no way affiliated with or authorized by any of those companies. | Copyright & Disclaimer