Jammer's Reviews

Comment Browser

Clear | RSS for this | Bottom

Total Found: 24,339 (Showing 1-25)

Next »Page 1 of 974
Azdude - Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 8:01pm (USA Central)
Re: ENT S3: Hatchery

Wow, I must be really smart. Yep, the alien egg peed on the Captain and turned him into Mr. Mom. Wow, never saw that coming.

On a side note, I'm catching up on Star Treks I missed when I was in the Air Force for 22 years. TNG is ny favorite series, although I was stationed in England when it came out, and assumed it was a British produced show because of Picards accent. No Google back then to educate me.

Enterprise is dissapointing, to say the least, but it is satisfying my Trek cravings. I just lower my standards.

So many here like DS9. I never cared for it, but maybe I'm missing something. I'll revisit.

Anyway, I feel so much better getting these random musings off my chest.

Thanks Jammer!
Azdude - Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 7:04pm (USA Central)
Re: ENT S3: Hatchery

I just started watching this episode, only 10 minutes into it. Haven't read the comments yet, but Archer just got sprayed.

I've always wondered why, when there's a breathable atmosphere in a potentially hazardous situation, they upen their helmets.

I'd be the crewman that says "that's ok, I'll just keep mine on."

We'll see if I'm right. Resuming the episode. ..
St..Manfred - Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 4:23pm (USA Central)
Re: VOY S7: Seventh Season Recap

A good series. It is a lot easier to criticize than to praise it. I consider myself a huge Star Trek fan. When I say "Star Trek", I am speaking of the utopian future Gene Roddenberry envisioned, from the core of mankind improving the human condition itself to economics all the way to philosophical normative ideals. Whenever I watch a Star Trek show, I am expecting this premise to resonate through its fabric.

When I started out watching VOY, I did not expect any serialized soap drama we now find in almost every TV show (the incredibly manipulative, pseudo-level-of-suspense and pseudo-plot driven "Game of Thrones" being paramount here). I expected a show that (for the most part) conveys the serene, humbling and enlightened Roddenberry-vision even through its darker plots. I like the occasional character and relationship development, as well as progression of the Bigger Picture in Star Trek shows, but I never watch them for these. I am watching Star Trek to get positive-normative allegories on where mankind might end up in some distant future, when we finally will have been able to "kill the beast" within.

Bearing this in mind, I think VOY has delivered. And it's these unique characteristics that make Star Trek so outstanding among all these hip post-modern self-devouring TV-shows nowadays, which basically cuddle our vanities and fears of loss of ego and materialistic possessions.

3 Stars for Star Trek VOY from me. Now I am looking forward to watching Star Trek DS9 for the first time.
Grumpy - Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 11:03am (USA Central)
Re: TNG S5: Power Play

Peter: "[Ro] seems to embody everything Yar was supposed to have been but failed to become."

Never thought of it that way, surprisingly. Seems an obvious comparison, now that you mention it... yet I tend to disagree. Yar was supposed to be a competent department head, not a woman with something to prove, like Ro. While Yar took no guff from outsiders, she was fully loyal to the Starfleet agenda.
Brian - Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 10:53am (USA Central)
Re: ENT S1: Fortunate Son

Even with it's faults, I think Enterprise is the best of the Star Trek spin-offs -which I find amazing, considering Rick Berman was involved
Peter - Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 9:40am (USA Central)
Re: TNG S5: Power Play

This episode really clicked for me and was among the best of Season 5. I was impressed by Sirtis' acting. I think I like her better as a General Zod-like prisoner yearning to escape than as Troi. Spiner's acting was also superb (as usual). His hatred of Worf had me thinking the possessor really were from the Essex, because almost two centuries ago Klingons were THE enemy.

My one quibble was O'Brien's involvement in the first place. Why does he beam down with the gadget that will strengthen the transporter signal? Never mind that he is the father of a newborn taking a 50/50 chance (according to LaForge) of getting his atoms scattered everywhere -- can they not beam down a piece of equipment without a person holding it? That's just silly.

I'm also liking Ro more and more this season. She's intelligent, tough, and sexy (witness her seduction of Riker during "Conundrum"). Her character seems to embody everything Yar was supposed to have been but failed to become.

I also noticed the strong score in this episode. A good score always enhances the mood and action, while a bland or forgettable one detracts from it. Hard to believe a producer actually wanted weak music on this show. Glad he was overruled.
FutureDude - Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 6:40am (USA Central)
Re: Star Trek: The Motion Picture

Often maligned as “slow and boring”, in my opinion, this is actually the best Trek film.

The human adventure is just beginning

I’ve had the argument for years. Most people think Star Trek: The Motion Picture is plain boring. I recently saw it described as “the motionless picture” in a writer’s blog. It’s considered slow. Ponderous. Monochromatic. Humorless.

The conventional wisdom holds that the second movie, The Wrath of Khan, is not only the best Star Trek film, it is also one of the greatest sci-fi films of all time. But I have to admit that — while I really enjoyed Khan — ST: TMP is, by far, my favorite of the eleven Trek movies.

Before you roll your eyes, please let me explain. For me it all boils down to one unifying idea — Star Trek: The Motion Picture is on a very small list of modern films that depict a powerful, beautiful, and original view of the future. I may not change your mind, but I hope you can experience the film through my eyes.

December, 1979

Think about the time when it was made.

It was 1979. Star Wars and Close Encounters graced the screen two years earlier. Superman: The Movie made us believe that a man could fly in 1978 and The Empire Strikes Back was just around the corner in 1980. For anyone with an imagination, it was a tremendous time to be alive and the golden age for blockbuster sci-fi cinema. But none of the aforementioned films mattered to me as much as Star Trek.

As a wide-eyed, twelve-year-old seventh grader, I probably had built up more excitement and anticipation for The Motion Picture than any other event in my entire life. My childhood heroes — Kirk, Spock, and McCoy — were about to grace the big screen! What would the Enterprise look like? Would they change it? How would it look flying through space with modern visual effects? I was so excited to see what they would do with a big budget.

Once I started seeing the commercials, I went nuts. I remember the voice of Orson Wells: “It will alter your perception of the future by taking you there.” That was what I wanted to hear. The FUTURE. Finally, a film about the future!

Star Wars took place “a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.” What did that have to do with me? I felt like I was finally going to get what I wanted from a film: a real depiction of human potential hundreds of years in the future.

I had seen 2001: A Space Odyssey a few years earlier. It was the first honest tour of tomorrow that I had ever seen. It seemed very possible and right around the corner based upon what had been happening with NASA’s space program. Krypton in Superman was really, really cool. But again, that was an alien planet with magical technology. I wanted to see something that connected to Earth and, ultimately, to me.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture delivered exactly what I was looking for. While 2001 showed me the world that I expected to live in as an adult, Star Trek promised to reveal a future of my dreams.

Finally, It Arrives in Theatres

When I saw the film with my cousin James, we were mesmerized from the first moment. Seeing the camera do a 180-degree pan of the updated Klingon cruisers as they approached a huge blue luminescent cloud blew my mind. Once we were inside the ships, I was sucked in by the production design. Clear screens with data projected on them. Actual Klingon language graphics on screen — not English! Then we moved on to the Epsilon 9 space station with astronauts jetting around outside. I was blown away, and this was just the beginning.

After a quick and epic stop at Vulcan to visit a hippie version of Spock, I finally got to see what I had been waiting for: Earth in the future. You see, when I watched the original Star Trek as a child, I always wanted to see what Earth looked like in the 23rd Century.

Yes, it was cool to travel around the galaxy seeking out new life, but I wanted to know what it was like at home. It always felt like they avoided it due to budget or something. And, no; visits to Earth in the 1960’s didn’t count.

Earth in the 23rd Century

Now, here was Starfleet Headquarters in San Francisco. The Golden Gate Bridge covered by pneumatic travel tubes. Shuttles flitting across the sky as routinely as a buses travel the streets. We then move to an orbiting office complex bustling with traffic; followed by an extended drydock sequence that reveals the Enterprise in all of its futuristic glory.

Speaking of the Enterprise, Andrew Probert took Matt Jeffries’ original design and blew it out of the water. The clean lines and details make this still the best ship to ever grace a Star Trek film or TV series.

For the first time, we’re able to ascertain the actual size of the ship. As Admiral Kirk and Scotty circle in a travel pod, the front window is large enough to see them inside. This — when mixed with the floating astronauts and traffic — gives us a real sense of scale. It was like going to the airport, and watching the airplanes and ground crews. There is something magical about it.

The ultimate sequence was the launch of the Enterprise. A tiny astronaut waving goodbye. The sun rising as the ship cruises away. Seeing Earth dwindle in the viewscreen as Sulu takes them to impulse. Shooting past Jupiter and its moons was awe inspiring. All of these aspects felt like a love letter to us from the future. I felt like I was finally there.

The sets and costumes were amazing. Every aspect felt rich and fully realized. The visual effects were spectacular. Each time the Enterprise went into warp speed, I was left speechless. It was even more amazing than watching the Millenium Falcon jump into hyperspace.

The icing on the cake was the final reveal of who/what V’ger really was — an evolved NASA space probe that had returned home after a galaxy-spanning adventure. The fact that the core concept was about exploration and connected to Voyager — a real planetary mission at the time — was validating and inspiring.

The only complaint I had about the film was that the plot reminded me of the Original Series episode called “The Changeling” where the Nomad probe went through a similar conversion. But I could forgive this.

A Futuristic Work of Art

All in all, seeing Star Trek: The Motion Picture was the greatest experience I had ever had at the time. My cousin James and I were blown away when it was over. As this was not the time of instant mp3 downloads, we drove back from the theater singing the theme over and over in an attempt to remember it. We must have driven my Aunt Cecelia crazy.

The soundtrack by Jerry Goldsmith remains legendary to this day. Few sci-fi films have ever topped it. In fact, I was ecstatic when Gene Roddenberry chose to use the theme for The Next Generation in 1987. I still listen to it often.

Roddenberry wanted to tell this story. He was inspired by the future and wanted to share that vision with the world. He finally had the budget, and the team to do it right.

Director Robert Wise, the actors, and the production staff — which included effects wizards Douglas Trumball of 2001 and John Dykstra of Star Wars — crafted a beautiful journey to tomorrow. It moved at a thoughtful pace so that the audience could take everything in. There was art transpiring on the screen; it like a classic painting — you don’t just scan it for two seconds and walk away.

All I ask is that you revisit the film and give it another chance. This time, look around. Take it in. You might find that you like it a little more than you expect.
FutureDude - Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 6:39am (USA Central)
Re: https://server3.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sbgpuisgiiwfgvf/suvw/p1/st-films/st-tmp.php

Often maligned as “slow and boring”, in my opinion, this is actually the best Trek film.

The human adventure is just beginning

I’ve had the argument for years. Most people think Star Trek: The Motion Picture is plain boring. I recently saw it described as “the motionless picture” in a writer’s blog. It’s considered slow. Ponderous. Monochromatic. Humorless.

The conventional wisdom holds that the second movie, The Wrath of Khan, is not only the best Star Trek film, it is also one of the greatest sci-fi films of all time. But I have to admit that — while I really enjoyed Khan — ST: TMP is, by far, my favorite of the eleven Trek movies.

Before you roll your eyes, please let me explain. For me it all boils down to one unifying idea — Star Trek: The Motion Picture is on a very small list of modern films that depict a powerful, beautiful, and original view of the future. I may not change your mind, but I hope you can experience the film through my eyes.

December, 1979

Think about the time when it was made.

It was 1979. Star Wars and Close Encounters graced the screen two years earlier. Superman: The Movie made us believe that a man could fly in 1978 and The Empire Strikes Back was just around the corner in 1980. For anyone with an imagination, it was a tremendous time to be alive and the golden age for blockbuster sci-fi cinema. But none of the aforementioned films mattered to me as much as Star Trek.

As a wide-eyed, twelve-year-old seventh grader, I probably had built up more excitement and anticipation for The Motion Picture than any other event in my entire life. My childhood heroes — Kirk, Spock, and McCoy — were about to grace the big screen! What would the Enterprise look like? Would they change it? How would it look flying through space with modern visual effects? I was so excited to see what they would do with a big budget.

Once I started seeing the commercials, I went nuts. I remember the voice of Orson Wells: “It will alter your perception of the future by taking you there.” That was what I wanted to hear. The FUTURE. Finally, a film about the future!

Star Wars took place “a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.” What did that have to do with me? I felt like I was finally going to get what I wanted from a film: a real depiction of human potential hundreds of years in the future.

I had seen 2001: A Space Odyssey a few years earlier. It was the first honest tour of tomorrow that I had ever seen. It seemed very possible and right around the corner based upon what had been happening with NASA’s space program. Krypton in Superman was really, really cool. But again, that was an alien planet with magical technology. I wanted to see something that connected to Earth and, ultimately, to me.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture delivered exactly what I was looking for. While 2001 showed me the world that I expected to live in as an adult, Star Trek promised to reveal a future of my dreams.

Finally, It Arrives in Theatres

When I saw the film with my cousin James, we were mesmerized from the first moment. Seeing the camera do a 180-degree pan of the updated Klingon cruisers as they approached a huge blue luminescent cloud blew my mind. Once we were inside the ships, I was sucked in by the production design. Clear screens with data projected on them. Actual Klingon language graphics on screen — not English! Then we moved on to the Epsilon 9 space station with astronauts jetting around outside. I was blown away, and this was just the beginning.

After a quick and epic stop at Vulcan to visit a hippie version of Spock, I finally got to see what I had been waiting for: Earth in the future. You see, when I watched the original Star Trek as a child, I always wanted to see what Earth looked like in the 23rd Century.

Yes, it was cool to travel around the galaxy seeking out new life, but I wanted to know what it was like at home. It always felt like they avoided it due to budget or something. And, no; visits to Earth in the 1960’s didn’t count.

Earth in the 23rd Century

Now, here was Starfleet Headquarters in San Francisco. The Golden Gate Bridge covered by pneumatic travel tubes. Shuttles flitting across the sky as routinely as a buses travel the streets. We then move to an orbiting office complex bustling with traffic; followed by an extended drydock sequence that reveals the Enterprise in all of its futuristic glory.

Speaking of the Enterprise, Andrew Probert took Matt Jeffries’ original design and blew it out of the water. The clean lines and details make this still the best ship to ever grace a Star Trek film or TV series.

For the first time, we’re able to ascertain the actual size of the ship. As Admiral Kirk and Scotty circle in a travel pod, the front window is large enough to see them inside. This — when mixed with the floating astronauts and traffic — gives us a real sense of scale. It was like going to the airport, and watching the airplanes and ground crews. There is something magical about it.

The ultimate sequence was the launch of the Enterprise. A tiny astronaut waving goodbye. The sun rising as the ship cruises away. Seeing Earth dwindle in the viewscreen as Sulu takes them to impulse. Shooting past Jupiter and its moons was awe inspiring. All of these aspects felt like a love letter to us from the future. I felt like I was finally there.

The sets and costumes were amazing. Every aspect felt rich and fully realized. The visual effects were spectacular. Each time the Enterprise went into warp speed, I was left speechless. It was even more amazing than watching the Millenium Falcon jump into hyperspace.

The icing on the cake was the final reveal of who/what V’ger really was — an evolved NASA space probe that had returned home after a galaxy-spanning adventure. The fact that the core concept was about exploration and connected to Voyager — a real planetary mission at the time — was validating and inspiring.

The only complaint I had about the film was that the plot reminded me of the Original Series episode called “The Changeling” where the Nomad probe went through a similar conversion. But I could forgive this.

A Futuristic Work of Art

All in all, seeing Star Trek: The Motion Picture was the greatest experience I had ever had at the time. My cousin James and I were blown away when it was over. As this was not the time of instant mp3 downloads, we drove back from the theater singing the theme over and over in an attempt to remember it. We must have driven my Aunt Cecelia crazy.

The soundtrack by Jerry Goldsmith remains legendary to this day. Few sci-fi films have ever topped it. In fact, I was ecstatic when Gene Roddenberry chose to use the theme for The Next Generation in 1987. I still listen to it often.

Roddenberry wanted to tell this story. He was inspired by the future and wanted to share that vision with the world. He finally had the budget, and the team to do it right.

Director Robert Wise, the actors, and the production staff — which included effects wizards Douglas Trumball of 2001 and John Dykstra of Star Wars — crafted a beautiful journey to tomorrow. It moved at a thoughtful pace so that the audience could take everything in. There was art transpiring on the screen; it like a classic painting — you don’t just scan it for two seconds and walk away.

All I ask is that you revisit the film and give it another chance. This time, look around. Take it in. You might find that you like it a little more than you expect.
MsV - Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 1:53am (USA Central)
Re: DS9 S6: Sacrifice of Angels

I loved this arc, except Sons and Daughters. Just couldn't stand it. Of course Odo made me mad enough to eat nails, but I enjoyed the story anyway. I just hate the way Odo looks when he is linking, he has that same lethargic expression that babies have when they are kept in a swing too long and can't speak to say they want out. (I think they may be sick) I also wish they had kept Ziyal alive, maybe she could have bonded with Jake and Nog as a potential playmate. Either way I just LOVED this arc, I had not seen it in years. This time I am attempting to watch every show in this serial from beginning to end.

BTW I like the post about not using Q. real funny.
Alston49 - Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 1:16am (USA Central)
Re: ENT S4: Divergence

Not really Sam S. I keep looking at Dr Beckett...er...Archer and expecting an oh, boy. Still get a kick out of S1's Detained. At the end of that ep I'm thinking "Sam, don't hit Al! Ziggy hasn't told him why you're here yet!"
MsV - Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 10:54pm (USA Central)
Re: DS9 S6: A Time to Stand

I know things were bleak and the Federation was taking a licking, but did the Feds even destroy at least one JemHadar ship? I would have liked to have heard one good story.
Xylar - Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 8:12pm (USA Central)
Re: VOY S5: Drone

I enjoyed the episode, even though the origins of the drone were a bit of a stretch. Still, I'm willing to let it slide as it was obviously just a set up to get to the story. If it takes a rather implausible set of coincidences to get to a story as decent as this, I'm okay with that.

I was initially thinking the story would rapidly devolve into the predictable tedious Borg drone runs amok and causes general mayhem kind of stories, but I'm glad they decided to go the other way. It was for the better.
I don't think it detracts from the threat of the Borg as a dangerous adversary, since One is a unique instance who is completely detached from the collective. He was a freak accident.

As is getting to be the routine, it was another Seven of Nine focused episode, but like I already said. Voyager has very few characters interesting enough to work with, so if that means they have to rely heavily on the most interesting one to carry the show, then so be it. I do tire of it sometimes, but it's better then seeing episodes focused around characters that don't really grow or change.
That's looking at you, Neelix and Harry, who are still mostly the same now as they were in season 1. At least Seven grows and changes over the course of the show. And although she's not the only one to do so, she is one of the more interesting ones.
James - Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 6:31pm (USA Central)
Re: VOY S7: Flesh and Blood

@Jeff This is one of the most fascinating comments I have ever read on this or any Trek related site. I honestly cannot decide whether you are being serious or sarcastically humorous. Given the tone of the first paragraph and the content of the last, I am guessing its a serious comment, so I will take it as such.

"Because he was played by an handsome actor with a open sincere face, we automatically trusted him and were surprised when he turned out to be a shithead."

Um...no, that's not even remotely the reason why we trusted him to begin with. I could not give a hoot if he was a male model, or his face looked like a malons arse. We were inclined to trust him because when we first encountered him he was calm, rational, reasonable and kept his word. He returned the doctor to Voyager as promised and endeavoured to open a dialogue with Janeway to find a peaceful resolution to the situation. His courage and compassion for his fellow holograms was evident when he risked his own "life" as it were to save them whereas he could so easily have escaped himself at no risk. Finally, he was articulate and sincere enough to effectively convey the intolerable suffering he and the others were subjected to during their captivity and this enabled us to empathise with their plight. It's somewhat ridiculous to reduce all this to simple good looks and an open expression. The fact is his character morphed from a reasonable, principled and charismatic leader into a deranged, irrational psychopath so fast I got whiplash.


"There was also a feminist solidarity message here. Torres and
Kejal were able to forego their racial differences and connect with each other as women to reject Iden's DEVIANT MALENESS and cooperate for the advancement of life."

Now you have really lost me. What "message" are you contriving to see here? So its "feminist solidarity" just because two females (actually one female and one computer program) manage to agree on something? Thus every time two men, say Chakotay and Tuvok, find common ground on an issue, it must constitute masculinist solidarity? It can't just be seen as two characters finding consensus on issue of common interest? And what on EARTH is "deviant maleness"?! Are you somehow implying that the source of Idens latter megalomania was his (simulated) male gender?? Therefore I can infer that the message you are seeing here goes something like this: the male leader symbolises patriarchal rule, which is inherently "deviant" owing to its "maleness" and only the inherent purity of feminine virtue, as expressed through "feminist solidarity" can stand up against it and cooperate "for the advancement of life"?! Its rude to simply mock another persons point of view, but thats utterly bonkers.

With the greatest respect, you sound like you have swallowed a radical feminist treatise of misandrist propaganda, suffered indigestion and then regurgitated it here.

Furthermore, you hypothesise that the source of Kims retarded growth and development as a character is actually his Chinese ethnicity. This, I believe, is a truly unique take on the problem. Somewhat ludicrous, yet refreshingly orignal at the same time lol. Personally, I have to go with the more conventional explanation of poor writing over the course of seven years.

You feel TNG lacks realism because Riker is too gorgeous and perfect (Eh...okayyy), ditto Troi, Laforge is blind and hides his eyes, Wesley is too annoying (I will grant you that one), Picard is too cultured and Worf is too ugly. Again, I do believe this to be an entirely original take on the shortcomings of TNG.

Somewhat disappointingly, your final paragraph actually makes complete sense, and I concur with almost all of it.

As for the episode itself, its a solid 3 stars. Entertaining, imaginative and well acted. However it once again demonstrates why Janeway is the most maddeningly inconsistent captain in the history of Trek. Contrast her treatment of the doctor here with that of Harry when he fell in love/lust with that alien chick.

Kim disobeys orders to cease contact with the alien, despite there being serious mitagating circumstances (he was under an alien influence that impaired his judgement and free will i.e. that ritual bonding that made him glow in the dark). Janeways response: a furious dressing down and formal reprimand on his record which even Chakotay said was too harsh.

The doctors offence on the other hand was several orders of magnitude more egregious. He disobeys orders, betrays the voyager crew by sending the holograms the information they need to cripple and almost destroy the entire ship, potentially killing everyone aboard. Finally he completes his disgrace by defecting to the enemy, abandoning his friends and colleagues (not for the first time) to go with a bunch of strangers he knows nothing about. Cathys response? Zilch. Zip. Nada. Because apparently he was just being "who he was". As I recall when Tom Paris attempted to "be who he was" by disobeying orders to help another culture save their planet he was demoted back to ensign. Not for the first time, Janeway displays the most appalling judgement.
W Smith - Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 1:56pm (USA Central)
Re: ENT S2: The Catwalk

Better than average outing for Enterprise. We knew the three aliens were up to something at the beginning of the episode, but it had some twists to keep it interesting and not cliched.
W Smith - Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 1:50pm (USA Central)
Re: ENT S2: Precious Cargo

Nowhere near as bad as Threshold, which still maintains the threshold for most execrable Trek ever.
No doubt that Padma Lakshmi is beautiful, but to criticize her acting here is to miss the point that not even Meryl Streep could deliver this poorly scripted character (a ridiculously cliched stuck-up princess). In addition, Trineer and Lakshmi had no chemistry together so to see them fall into each others' arms was painful to watch.
Yes, it was bad, but at least they didn't de-evolve into slugs.
Robrow - Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 5:26am (USA Central)
Re: DS9 S5: Nor the Battle to the Strong

Sorry, but it was too manipulative for my taste. If Bashir had died Jake's self-disgust would have carried more weight. Or if he had known about Jake's actions (and naturally forgiven him), it would have given their scene an interesting edge. As it was Lofton's meltdown in front of the nurses seemed closer to a teenage strop than PTSD. The trite benediction at the end, and Lofton's cheesy smile, just seemed to chrystalise my dislike. Ahh poor Jake, now everything will be fine. Not in the same league as Duet and the Wire. There I really sense emotional depth.
Azdude - Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 2:05am (USA Central)
Re: ENT S3: Extinction

This is the first comment I've made on this outstanding blog.

But oh my god, this show had to be the most painful show of the series to watch. That's saying a lot, considering the lack of writers on this series. Or I should say, the lack of writers that know how to write. Or think.

I'm not saying that watching this show was as painful as, say, being water boarded or some similar torture such as bamboo shoved under my fingernails. I have yet to experience these tribulations, but if I am ever forced to endure them, rest assured I will recall the hour I spent watching this episode, and compare.

If I do, I'll let you know which is worse, but I'm sure it'll be a close call.

I really expected one of the mutants to start asking "where is my precious?? " ala Gollom in the Lord Of The Rings. No disrespect to that bug eyed little creep, he's much more dignified than Starfleets finest with DNA issues.

And LeVar Burton directed this.

I'll forgive him, he had only so much to work with.
eastwest101 - Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 1:02am (USA Central)
Re: ENT S2: Regeneration

Was watching this on DVD last night and then ducked into the writers audio commentary, was interesting to hear a very defensive Mike Sussman defend the choices made and response to similar criticism seen here.

Overall the whole thing worked and is justifiably regarded as entertaining and well directed with an excellent score, but even Sussman recognized the implausibility and sheer stupidity in Act 1 and admitted that it was a bit of leap to far in logic and belevability which many in the audience couldn't overcome. I got the impression that Braga wanted to do this episode, there were some spare sets and costumes floating around from the First Contact shoot. They did okay to try to tie in some difficult sequel/prequel issues but the explanation of how Flox's radiation treatment for the nanobots somehow got lost from the 22nd century to the 24th century was pretty weak.

We did get something close to an apology for Acquisition although to be fair I don't think we could put that one on Sussman's shoulders!
MsV - Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 12:33am (USA Central)
Re: DS9 S4: Hard Time

I think the only reason they made this episode was to upset me. (just kidding) I was upset when I watched it completely, from beginning to end. I had started months ago, but I could get through it. I felt so sorry for Miles, he did nothing to deserve this. I have always love Colm's acting and he did a terrific job here, I was convinced he had been tortured for real.

Although Julian was trying to be a good friend, he did jump the gun by telling Sisko that Miles was not fit for duty. When Sisko relieved him of his duty, he was so depressed he screams at Molly, tears up things in his way, and attempts to kill himself. I think he needed his work to help him. Bashir is a good friend to Miles.

There was a lot of great acting in this story, but I hated the story. Too sad.
Deborah - Wed, Apr 22, 2015, 9:53pm (USA Central)
Re: ENT S4: United

OK Jammer, OK everyone. I got up off my couch and came over to my computer and said if Jammer doesn't give this 4 stars I'm going to personally track him down and... do something. What a nitpicky bunch. What the hell is WRONG with you guys?
MsV - Wed, Apr 22, 2015, 9:08pm (USA Central)
Re: DS9 S4: The Visitor

@ Dimpy He did ruin his life

I agree with you he did ruin his life. I wrote what I did because I thought you were asking why would Jake ruin his life.
Xylar - Wed, Apr 22, 2015, 8:00pm (USA Central)
Re: VOY S5: Night

I was fine with most of the episode. There's only one small thing I would've liked to see changed. I would have preferred the Malon ship to be incapacitated by Voyager (or those Void aliens) as Voyager uses the vortex to escape and permanently shuts the door behind them, thus leaving the Malon stranded in the void and at the mercy of all the victims they themselves created.

It just would have made for a more poetic justice kind of ending, but it's not essential, I guess. I just like to see the bad guys get their comeuppance in ways that aren't just 'kill them somehow'.
Robert - Wed, Apr 22, 2015, 1:34pm (USA Central)
Re: TNG S5: The Outcast

"I have to respect Jonathon Frakes advocating a male candidate for Soren, though that's a bit of a stretch since Soren identified as female, in fact they might have made "her" subtly more feminine."

If memory serves the aliens were all played by women. If they were all played by men they could have just picked big burly men and then one who had softer features. I think that cast properly it would have worked.

Obviously if the love interest was the ONLY male that would have been bonkers, but I assume it would have changed the casting of the entire episode.
Peter - Wed, Apr 22, 2015, 12:58pm (USA Central)
Re: TNG S5: The Masterpiece Society

I'd give this one a solid 3 stars. I've always liked the kind of science fiction that deals with an "engineered to be perfect" society, and I especially like it when these kinds of societies fall apart, are shown to be evil (think "Logan's Run") or are otherwise subverted even at the cost of violating the Prime Directive (like Star Trek TOS "The Return of the Archons". "Gattaca" is a sort of slightly newer analog to this episode, and it's a superb film. This episode falls short of "Gattaca," of course, but then you can't compare an hour of TV to a big budget film. As a Star Trek episode, this one is quite good. I liked the Hannah character in particular and the way that her seeing both society's advancements and Geordi's disability caused her thinking to evolve. I also liked the matte painting of the colony's exterior. That the view through the glass of the biosphere actually looked like the planet they were on was a nice touch, given the constraints of special effects.

I found the colonists genetically pre-determined roles to be an interesting (and frightening) idea, along the lines of "Brave New World." I must question why such a society would even need a leader,however. Everyone's role is clearly defined and the closed colony never faces any significant challenges or threats (until the solar core fragment nears, of course) -- so what purpose does Aaron serve? Where work roles are so clearly defined and the culture is stable, Ursula LeGuin's "The Dispossessed" paints a picture of peaceful and productive anarchy.
Troy - Wed, Apr 22, 2015, 12:03pm (USA Central)
Re: TNG S5: The Outcast

I like this epidode, to me it was the gay rights version of the original series episode with the anti-racism half black/half white aliens.
One thing I do have a hard time seeing Riker going gaga for Soren. Star Trek accelerated love montages are usually weak, this one especially so. I have to respect Jonathon Frakes advocating a male candidate for Soren, though that's a bit of a stretch since Soren identified as female, in fact they might have made "her" subtly more feminine.
A previous comments suggested Wesley might have been a better candidate, I have to agree.
Next »Page 1 of 974
Copyright © 1994-2015, 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