Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:

Total Found: 34,198 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 1,368
Set Bookmark
AA
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 9:18pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S7: Inside Man

LOL, I thought of "Ace" Rimmer, too, but someone beat me to it.

This episode plays like a parody. Overdrawn characters, silly mess hall antics, crew too gullible, Barclay too cartoony. It almost could have been Red Dwarf, but Red Dwarf did it so much better.
Set Bookmark
mephyve
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 9:06pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S4: Nemesis

Chokroachkotay in a sleep inducing anti thriller (0)
Set Bookmark
LauraD
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 7:41pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S4: Rules of Engagement

Honestly, unless every single officer was killed, O'Brien would not end up in command. He's an NCO--a Chief Petty Officer. That's enlisted and that means that an Ensign straight out of the Academy outranks him.

As for Major Kira, she's only officially in the chain of command on the station. The Defiant is a Starfleet vessel. The Bajorians don't have an official place there. DS9 is a joint outpost and she is in the COC there. (Dax would actually have been next in line to take command)
Set Bookmark
RandomThoughts
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 6:16pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S2: The Maquis, Part II

Heya Paul M.

Upon re-reading my comment, I realized I should have said something along the lines of Nechayev being the superior officer of the area around the Cardassian border. No, she wasn't following Picard, but when the Enterprise was about to do something with the Cardassian's, or the Maquis, Nechayev was the one who usually gave them their marching orders. And she did that with Sisko as well.

Heh, and no, I didn't like how she was written, I just liked the continuity of her being there multiple times.

RT
Set Bookmark
Adam
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 5:35pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S6: One Small Step

I didn't enjoy this episode very much. It felt like the writers were trying to give Chakotay something to do. All we've ever seen from him are squabbles with Janeway and spirit quests, yet suddenly he reveals a long interest in paleontology and history? I don't buy it. This is what goes wrong when you have a poorly utilized character six seasons into the show.

On top of that we have the standard "shuttle in trouble" storyline which you already know will end just fine because this is Voyager.

The episode's saving grace is Seven's story arc. The mention of the Yankees at the end of the episode was a nice touch. 2.5 stars from me.
Set Bookmark
Nicholas Ryan
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 4:39pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S5: Infinite Regress

Amazing how all of the personalities are from the Federation's corner of the galaxy.
Set Bookmark
Nicholas Ryan
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 4:15pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S5: Timeless

You would think in 15 years, Starfleet would've done something about Voyager being on that planet. Anyone could stumble on it and take the technology, no matter what shape it was in. Certainly some families would want the remains of their loved ones returned.
Set Bookmark
Nicholas Ryan
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 4:02pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S5: Once Upon a Time

They might as well killed Samantha Wildman. I'm not even sure we see her again. Everyone else seems to raise Naomi. At least killing the mom would've made the rest of the series make sense.

Just like Alexander, the alien part explains the rapid growth, just like it explains why the pregnancy went on for like a year and a half.
Set Bookmark
FlyingSquirrel
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 3:50pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

I'm not sure that the conflict between Kirk and Krall is that close of a parallel to any RL conflicts, aside from the general idea of whether peaceful cooperation among different species and political units is possible. My problem was more that Krall's motivation was awfully thin.

It seems likely that Starfleet didn't purposely "abandon" the Franklin - rather, they just didn't know what had happened to it and didn't have the resources or the capacity to track it down. It reminded me a bit of Voyager making a complete hash of Kes's character by having her seek "revenge" against the crew for something that she shouldn't have held them responsible for in the first place, at least not if she'd been thinking rationally and consistently with her established characterization. You can surmise that Krall had simply lost his mind after a while (same with Kes too, I suppose), but "it doesn't really make sense because the character is insane" is pretty weak when it comes to explaining a villain's motivation.

It was also unclear to me what exactly Krall's endgame was. Did he simply want to kill as many Federation citizens as possible? Did he think that all this destruction and death would somehow revitalize the Federation and/or humanity by forcing them to find strength through conflict and adversity? The female alien who had staged the whole thing to lure them there said that Krall wanted to "save them from themselves," but this was never really explained - I'm not sure if she was making this up, if she thought it was true but Krall had lied to her, if Krall told her this and really meant it, or what.
Set Bookmark
Fenne
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 3:21pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

Referring to my previous post: clearly my brain hasn't exactly been working on all thrusters since the death scene in STID. It wasn't Tribble Magic Blood, but Kahn Magic Blood.
Set Bookmark
Chrome
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 3:15pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

@Genre-Buster

Not a plothole. The Enterprise was able chart a safe path through the nebula. Kirk downloaded that information from the wreckage of his ship and used it to guide the Franklin out. This safe path was mentioned and even bragged about by Kirk towards the end of the film.
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 3:05pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

Chrome: Wow. Big gaping plot-hole just occurred to me: How were Kirk and company able to get back to the Yorktown station and blast the Beasties in a ship so woefully unequipped to pass a nebula?

This is the big perennial problem with Abrams' Trek - really Abrams' Everything. STB is perhaps the least afflicted of the three reboot films, but it's still damned sloppy.
Set Bookmark
borusa
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 2:48pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S1: The Last Outpost

Watching this again years later I am struck by the following:
1. Brent Spiner is very good-this show really needs his humorous input.
2. Jonathan Frakes is truly dreadful. Riker is like a grotesque caricature of Kirk,throwing his weight around inappropriately shouting at Geordi and others.
3. Denise Crosby seems embarrassed by most of her lines as well she might be.
4. The Ferengi are a joke.
5. Oh no-still we have this superior utopian human evolution ( 'wack -a-doodle') concept of Rodenberry's as Riker condescendingly tells Portal that they ( the cartoon like Ferengi) are like we were several centuries ago. Is that why we shout at our colleagues ,Will?

Watching these early TNGs is tough going.
Set Bookmark
Chrome
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 1:41pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

@Peter G.

It's not technobabble, the movie went to great lengths to show that passing the nebula was not something easy to do and that not all ships could do it. Even if a ship *could* pass through the nebula it's not realistic to expect that it's long-range functions would work through the nebula. In fact, The Franklin became "lost" partially because of the dangerous and isolating nature of the nebula.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 1:32pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

@ Chrome,

"The Enterprise was on a rescue mission to the planet Altamid which was blocked by a nebula so dense it blocks communications to Starfleet. So if they can't even get a com signal out of the nebula, how would you expect them to attempt long range transport? This doesn't even get into to the fact that the ship was already severely damaged and it's transporters were probably offline."

You know you're in trouble when you have to resort to armchair technobabble to explain why obvious solutions to problems weren't used in a feature film :)

This kind of argument, while plausible, reminds me of the Harry-can't-get-a-lock-Kim syndrome from Voyager. What to do when obvious tools would render an ill-thought-out problem easy to solve? Just say they don't work. Easiest thing ever! That's one the reasons why the Trek series through DS9 were very hesitant to introduce new tech that could change the balance of power; because with too many tech options you can't write stories anymore. Voyager jumped the shark there and gave the crew access to insane technology, but knew they couldn't actually make it part of the series so in each instance it was "used up" all in one shot and then forgotten, with the exception of the mobile emitter. Don't even get me started on debriefing Seven about Borg technology, since there was never a coherent understanding of what she could realistically know or remember from the collective.

The Trek films have tended to remain balanced in terms of tech, and even STVI was made quite a big deal about introducing the new tech of firing while cloaked (even though it was never heard from again). The TNG films didn't do anything crazy on this score, other than the tepid suggestion that a Borg cube can be destroyed simply by knowing the "weak spot". But the JJ-verse films threw the baby out with the bathwater and basically turned the tech of the universe into Dr. Who, where if you can imagine doing it, they can come with a way to do it. Under those conditions you can't create continuity or story limitations anymore and it becomes a free-for-all. This is actually the main difference between science fiction and fantasy. In sci-fi the authors explore the possibilities of what science can do, based on what we now know and projecting forwards. Fantasy disposes of legit prediction and just wants an imaginary experience based on some arbitrary conditions. On these grounds I'd call the reboots Trek films fantasy-fiction.
Set Bookmark
Chrome
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 1:04pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

"The villain's still a giant "they hate us cos of our freedoms" strawman. "

He hates the Federation for becoming soft and non-militant. Oh, and for abandoning him (thus abandoning the militaristic ideals he fought for). I don't recall any part of the movie where talked about freedom. He talked about how "unity" was the Federation's weakness.
Set Bookmark
Corey
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 12:46pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

"In the Federation/Kirk's defense, he's shown trying to reason with Krall for several minutes in the film before resorting to violence. But Krall's methods are clearly the more violent of the two. And yes, sometimes you need to act violent to stop violent people. That's just self-defense."

The villain's still a giant "they hate us cos of our freedoms" strawman.

Set Bookmark
Yanks
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 12:46pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Brain S.,

"So what did Abrams do with all his hard-fought cinematic space and freedom? Ripped off Wrath of Khan. Badly. Word for word, in some cases. Even Melania Trump thought it was too blatant (:P)"

The use of Khan at all wasn't needed. Harrison could have been an augment from Enterprise and told the same story.

This and not giving us an original story are what tanks STiD for me.

"Seriously, go re-watch the Spock-Khan battle scene in STID (or not), and then watch the end Kirk-Khan battle scene from Space Seed on YouTube. That's the same guy Kirk fought and won against? I know we're trying to modernize some of the old special effects a bit, and yeah, those old TOS scenes could be quite cheesy at times.....but Space Seed looked much more like something based in reality."

I call him "INCREDI=SPOCK"!!! :-) Khan and Spock were superhero like at the end of this movie. Almost laughable at times. (although, I concede, watching Spock run after Khan was pretty awesome. How many times did Uhura have to stun Khan? :-)
Set Bookmark
Chrome
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 12:44pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

"when the Enterprise is being attacked by Krall's swarm and getting torn apart, there is a moment when you realize even Scotty's not going to be able to fix this, the ship is doomed; your next thought, of course, is 'not to worry, we have transwarp personal transporters that can beam a person from Earth to Chronos instantaneously and fit in a duffel bag- they'll all be back on Yorktown or Earth (or Ceti Alpha V!) in no time.' So, in the context of the preceding films, it is wildly disappointing to see them all in generic escape pods, and being immediately captured. "

I'm sorry, I don't usually call comments out like this, but you're missing a big part of the movie by saying this. The Enterprise was on a rescue mission to the planet Altamid which was blocked by a nebula so dense it blocks communications to Starfleet. So if they can't even get a com signal out of the nebula, how would you expect them to attempt long range transport? This doesn't even get into to the fact that the ship was already severely damaged and it's transporters were probably offline.
Set Bookmark
Rob
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 12:34pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Tapestry

At this point in Season 6, the best episode BY FAR.

I would have been tempted to give it that extra 0.5 of a star due to Marta being very attractive, but the reality is that whilst this is a solid episode, it's just not quite at the same level as The Inner Light, which was exceptional.
Set Bookmark
E2
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 11:37am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

Well said, FlyingSquirrel.


Iā€™m very happy to see a review for 'Beyond' up so quickly.

I was, however, a bit perplexed to see that Jammer rated it below 'Into Darkness.'

I have a theory that may explain it, though:
If it had been a stand-alone film, or a new reboot, it would have been fine, but as it is the third of the series, and they worked hard to tie it to the previous films (the Beastie Boys song in the trailer and the film's climax are ample evidence of that,) it runs into problems.

It's possible that Jammer placed it below the earlier, 2009 & 2011 movies because of ways it fails to live up to the precedents established by the J.J. Abrams directed films.

For example, in 'Beyond' when the Enterprise is being attacked by Krall's swarm and getting torn apart, there is a moment when you realize even Scotty's not going to be able to fix this, the ship is doomed; your next thought, of course, is 'not to worry, we have transwarp personal transporters that can beam a person from Earth to Chronos instantaneously and fit in a duffel bag- they'll all be back on Yorktown or Earth (or Ceti Alpha V!) in no time.' So, in the context of the preceding films, it is wildly disappointing to see them all in generic escape pods, and being immediately captured.

This leads to the next conundrum- why didn't they resurrect any or all of the crew Krall drained? Kirk had been killed in the 2011 outing by a massive dose of radiation; physically what that means is that a huge number of fast moving large particles (such as neutrons) pass through you and break molecular bonds- a great many of your cells come apart; your organs fail (this is what kills you) and slough off, it's a horrible, but well understood way to die. But we already know that the blood of genetically engineered 'supermen' from the '90s, or Khan's at least, can save you. It can undo all of the tissue damage, the cell damage, and the DNA damage caused. And they've had this to study and reproduce for at least the last 3 years- so it's safe to assume it would be carried in reasonable quantities on every starship, every outpost, and in every Starfleet first aid kit.

Failing to utilize these rather obvious options would mean, at the very least, that Scotty, McCoy and Spock all somehow forgot the technologies they themselves invented/discovered. This would make them less believable as explorers than the crew of the Sir Ridley Scott's Prometheus!

So the crux of this argument would be: People who were able to put the other reboot films out of their minds while watching 'Beyond' tended to like it better; People who honestly liked or had invested themselves in them would have a harder time enjoying the latest movie.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 11:31am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: True Q

@ Chrome,

Given what was done to the Q and the Borg in Voyager, I think "cannon" was the correct word choice :)
Set Bookmark
Chrome
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 10:59am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: First Contact

@George Monet

You didn't like "The Undiscovered Country"? I think you better watch it again. It's easily one of the best Trek films out there.
Set Bookmark
Chrome
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 10:50am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: True Q

@Peter G.

The word is canon. Cannons are things you 'asplode buildings with. šŸ˜‰
Set Bookmark
FlyingSquirrel
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 10:32am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

@Jammer:

I didn't exactly see the engineering scene as "heresy." I just found it a little too self-conscious and not entirely justified in story or character terms. It bore the fingerprints of some writers and producers sitting around thinking, "Hey, what if *Kirk* is the one who sacrifices himself and then *Spock* is the one that yells 'KHAAAAAAAAN!' like Shatner did in the original?" Well, OK, it's an interesting idea, but there needs to be a reason for it.

Kirk sacrificing himself is fine as far as I'm concerned. Spock losing it and screaming like that? Eh, not so sure about that. We know that Vulcans do in fact have strong emotions and are simply better at controlling them and not relying on them to make decisions. Is Kirk's apparent death enough to push Spock over the edge? Maybe, but having him then start beating the crap out of Khan, possibly to the point of killing him if Uhura hadn't intervened, seemed excessive and indicative of the movie not really "getting" what Trek and its characters are supposed to be about. Maybe it could have worked if the movie had checked in on Spock later and he was disturbed by his own loss of control, but IIRC it's left entirely unaddressed after that.

Personally, these "reboot" movies have reinforced for me something along the lines of what you said during some of the weaker moments of (I think) Voyager and/or Enterprise - there's a ton of Star Trek out there and it doesn't need to keep going and going and going. If the only ideas for big-screen Trek movies (or, at least, the only ideas that the studios are willing to fund) involve turning it into a wham-whizz-bang sci-fi action franchise, then what's the point? Why not just let Star Trek rest in peace and put the money that it costs to make these movies towards the Star Wars franchise or some other new property?
Next ►Page 1 of 1,368
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2016 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.