Comment Stream

Re: VOY S4: Hunters

I'll jump into the fray.

I think it really depends on whether or not the writers intended Seven to be queer-coded. If they didn't, then Top Hat is correct. If they did, then Randall is correct. Randall clearly believes that they did intend it.

Re: TNG S6: Ship in a Bottle

Totally random thought but wouldn't they change their clothes before leaving for their space adventure? I always thought that it was odd they didn't change. The Countess wore pants on Safari (I think that was the example she gave) and she said loved it. What they were wearing was really impractical for space travel. Personally, if I found myself in the future, I'd want to update my wardrobe.

And to raise a point I saw somewhere else, do those small shuttles have toilets, sonic showers, replicators, etc.? Yes, holograms don't have to sleep, eat, etc. but they don't think they are holograms anymore. Scotty was sent off in a shuttle as well. The inside looks rather spartan with few amenities. Traveling between planets must get pretty boring. I hope the computer has a lot of books in memory, at least.

I do like this episode. So far I've been impressed with Season 6.

Re: TNG S6: Chain of Command, Part I

He certainly would look amazing for 60. He actually looks great for 52 (as confirmed by his physique in Part 2).

Re: TNG S6: Chain of Command, Part I

Some people state that Patrick Stewart is an "old man." He was what, 51 or 52 when this was filmed? Does that make him an old man?

I do agree that it's hard to be a commando at 52, but I don't agree it's "old."

Re: TNG S5: The First Duty

LOL - not in this lifetime!

Re: TNG S6: Rascals

I'm not a huge fan of this episode but it does have some humorous moments. Riker spouting all of that technobabble to the Ferengi had me cracking up. He did it with such aplomb.

Re: TNG S5: The First Duty

I just realized how odd "I'm not a criminal lawyer" sounds!

I meant I'm not a lawyer that practices criminal law.

Re: TNG S5: The First Duty

@Jason R and @Booming

There is a difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. The definition of involuntary manslaughter depends on the jurisdiction, but I found a good description:

The unintentional death of another person as a result of reckless actions, negligence, criminal activity, or any person's actions is involuntary manslaughter. There are several examples of involuntary manslaughter, from texting and driving, to using and abusing drugs, and discharging a firearm.

I'd go so far as to say the facts we do have seem to indicate that this is involuntary manslaughter, but that's why we have trials, judges, lawyers, juries, etc. I'm not a criminal lawyer, but Wesley's testimony could have made all the difference in a criminal trial and led to a guilty verdict. Of course, if incarceration was a possibility he may not have testified.

Re: TNG S6: Relics

I don't think Scotty is like that in this episode BTW. I just think that Simpsons' bit is very funny.

This episode is good for nostalgia, but also a little sad. As some other reviewers have pointed out.

Re: TNG S6: Relics

I can't help but think of this from The Simpsons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VEnT11mTnI

Re: TNG S6: Realm of Fear

In case anyone wants to geek out on the "does the transporter kill you" debate:

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/09/is-beaming-down-in-star-trek-a-death-sentence/

Re: TNG S5: Silicon Avatar

@Booming. Please, the CE chases people into caves and doesn't leave until it eats them. Probability is not the point at all. You can believe it may be just as happy eating plants like a rabbit or sitting next to a sun, but the evidence is against you. I am advocating extreme caution and trust that must be earned. You can approach it with shields down and open arms all you want. I'm sure you'll be very tasty.

Re: TNG S5: Silicon Avatar

@Booming

I don’t think my stating that a peaceful solution is unlikely is advocating violence. What a leap in logic that is! To me it’s along the lines of hope for the best, plan for the worst.

I base my point about how improbably the CE could be satisfied on historical facts. The CE is an ecosystem destroyer. It doesn't *just* gobble up the warm blooded life forms, but every single living thing. It makes planets uninhabitable. That alone makes me think it would be very difficult to satisfy. Not impossible, but maybe close to it. I see no evidence to the contrary.

Regarding Picard, I felt his position wasn't balanced enough. As Peter G said, it wasn’t peace no matter what, but there wasn’t enough "maybe peace won’t be possible" in my opinion. I wanted Picard to at least express greater doubts to someone that peace may not be possible than he did. I thought that would have made a better episode.

Regarding trust, maybe it isn't very "Star Trek" of me but I believe trust must be earned, not just given. Especially with an entity that is capable of such widespread destruction so quickly. To place trust in it and be wrong would be much worse than not trusting it and being wrong (which doesn’t necessarily mean killing it). How could Starfleet continue to monitor it if they did manage to make peace with it? Would they just accept its promise that it would stop eating humanoids? I doubt it, but I don’t think this was explored enough. Peter G also says “it would not be very complicated at this point to keep tabs on it, or follow it around, or whatever.” Based on what? How in the world does anyone know that? They are going to assign a starship to follow it? What if it decides to go to another quadrant, is it just someone else’s problem? Or the starship will follow it? Try to stop it?

When I said "job done" I was expressing what I believed to be Dr. Marr's position on what she did. I thought that was obvious, but maybe it wasn't.

My main point was Picard was callous towards Dr. Marr and the CE's victims. I also expressed that for the reasons given above, peace was improbable. I will continue to deny that by stating that, I am advocating violence. I do think the CE is actually more destructive than the Borg (just not as widespread) given how quickly and thoroughly it destroys entire ecosystems. Due to the great potential of destruction of this entity, anything but extreme caution and skepticism would be foolish. I didn’t see that expressed in this episode. Maybe you did or maybe you don’t think it was necessary.

Re: TNG S5: Silicon Avatar

@Booming

Please reread my post. I did not advocate jungle law (really, show me where I did). In fact, I even said that perhaps Picard was making a valid point that we should try to communicate with it first; to see if there was another way forward. Yes, my language waffled a bit because I had my doubts that it would be successful.

Regarding Dr. Marr, I just said I understood where she was coming from. I never said she was right to destroy it. I also never said that it could not be trusted, but I questioned whether or not we could ever really trust it. There is a big difference between the two. I think it would factor into Picard’s communications with it were he given the chance.

My post was mainly critical of Picard and the way he was with Dr. Marr. I concluded she didn’t care what happened to her after she destroyed the CE. To her it was job (well) done.

She was so happy until she spoke to Data.

@Peter G

What you say makes sense. I agree that Picard wasn’t bent on peace no matter what. He was never given the chance. If he had been more sensitive to Dr. Marr's history he might prevented her from taking such a drastic action. I think I was more offended by what he said than many were.

What he said to her might not have mattered. I can’t really make up my mind if she was determined to destroy it right from the start no matter what. She might have been.

Re: TNG S5: Cost of Living

I really don't get all of the Alexander hate. The kid has had a tough life for such a young person. Of course he would have issues and isn't just a "brat" as some call him. His acting isn't great, but it isn't terrible either.

Maybe it comes from what happens in DS9. I never made it that far into that series. Perhaps I'll try again with this website to help me along. There are some interesting incites and discussions that make this a great companion to watching Star Trek (I haven't tried it with the other shows/movies). Thanks Jammer and all!

Regarding this episode, I found their relationship heartwarming and agree with the comments that she would be happy to dote on him. They needed each other and it was karma (or whatever) that they found each other. There are some lessons here about being true to yourself, yadda, yadda, yadda.

All in all a so-so episode. I don't mind Alexander and kind of like Lwuxana. Many of the holodeck scenes and characters were cringeworthy which would bring the rating down for me. The B plot was only there to give the rest of the crew something to do.

Re: TNG S5: Cause and Effect

@Booming that's too bad. Cheers is still good. I prefer the early "Diane" years to the "Rebecca" years but I really like all of it. Maybe someday you'll get to watch it.

@William B it's so true. Grammer was able to do so much with the material he was given. I will never forget the scene where he runs around the bar holding scissors yelling "I'm running with scissors" to show his rebellious side. I wish Cheers was still on Netflix.

Re: TNG S5: The First Duty

A few observations based on me just watching this and reading the comments:

1. Starfleet Academy is just that, an academy. Some reviewers seem to think that everyone who serves in Starfleet has to go through the academy. No, it's for officers. Think Westpoint, the US Naval Academy, etc. Enlisted people don't go to academies. There are many more enlisted people than there are officers. Whether or not people think that Starfleet is a military organization, the military model is the only one I can think of that works here.
2. Another point that comes up sometimes is "why are their barbers, bartenders, etc. on the Enterprise? How do they get paid?" I have always assumed that these are civilians who want to explore space but don't want to join Starfleet. They have to contribute somehow. It didn't come up in this episode but I thought I'd mention it.
3. Regarding this episode, absolutely the judges suspected the cadets were attempting a Kolvoord Starburst. They were nobody's fools. They just couldn't prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt" or whatever standard they were using. Their questioning was subtle and clever. Also, they made it clear they had serious doubts about the testimony of the cadets, but all of the hard evidence was blown up. The recording was incomplete. Come on, this is Starfleet academy. They would have some of the best pilots in Starfleet (think Top Gun) who would recognize this maneuver immediately, banned or not. All IMHO but I'm basically agreeing with Davy (from 2018!) on this point.

Great episode!

Re: TNG S5: Cause and Effect

I like Grammer, too! I like him more in Cheers than Frasier, though.

Re: TNG S5: Cause and Effect

This has always been one of my favorites and I was happy when I finally reached it in the "re-watch, not allowed to skip any episodes" I'm doing.

I can't add much here except when Frasier says "your vessel is not familiar to us" it doesn't mean they've never heard of the Enterprise. He means they don't recognize that particular galaxy class ship model. How could they? It is from their future.

Also, given there was a small grammar discussion, I'll add my two cents as I like grammar. I'll caveat this by stating I don't expect grammar of anyone to be perfect in this forum. It can take a lot of time to proof and re-proof. (Hey, I'm a lawyer but this ain't no legal agreement.) It is okay to use an apostrophe after a single letter if it would cause confusion not to use it. This does not include numbers. So i's is okay (otherwise it would be is) but 3's is not. 3s is not confusing. Here is my source, which is respectable enough:

https://www.grammarbook.com/blog/apostrophes/the-apostrophe-with-numbers-letters-and-abbreviations/

Re: TNG S5: Silicon Avatar

I think after her discussion with Picard Marr decided once and for all that she was going to destroy the CE. She would try to play "nice," but her path was set. Maybe that explains why some of her behavior seems erratic as Jammer pointed out. She was hiding her true intentions and it proved difficult sometimes. Deep down she was so very angry. The mama bear in me gets it.

Yes, again Troi was conveniently useless. It makes for a better episode.

Re: TNG S5: Silicon Avatar

Picard's comparison was an affront to all of the people who died and those they left behind. Comparing the people to cuttlefish, really? It was a horrible thing to say to a mother who lost her son.

Perhaps he was making a valid point that we should try to communicate first before destroying the CE; to see if there was another way forward (however unlikely it seems we could satisfy this planet destroyer or ever really trust it). However, the way he made his point was disrespectful, cold and heartless. I think this conversation was a real miss. At a minimum, he should have shown more compassion. I would have felt like slapping him if I was her.

There should have been some acknowledgement at some point that it seemed improbable that we could ever satisfy or trust the CE. Even if it was just between Picard and Troi, or Picard and Crusher.

Leaving behind a 16 year old son to pursue a career does not rob the mother the right to mourn him or to be extremely, gut-wretchedly angry at the entity that consumed her son. She had such a huge conflict of interest that Starfleet was really blind to have sent her for this mission. Yes, she had been studying it for years and years, but it still was a mistake. Alright, even though I made it, I actually find that kind of criticism pointless. We would have had a very different episode if she hadn't be assigned and it would have lost much of its emotional impact. So, of course she was sent and I suppose Starfleet assumed she was "enlightened" enough to not hold a huge grudge. Their mistake (or was it.....).

I don't think she cared at all what would the ramifications would be after she killed it. Job done.

Re: TNG S5: Redemption, Part II

At first I agreed that Picard let Worf back too easily but then I was thinking maybe that was the plan all along. Picard had to show that Starfleet was not getting involved in the Civil War thus, naturally, he could not condone one of his officers participating. Personal leave cancelled. Worf had to resign, it was the only way, as he and his brother were needed to sort out the mess with the Klingons. Picard knew this. Picard had to make it look legit but when all was said and done, he was always planning on taking Worf back if possible.

Re: TNG S4: In Theory

@ Peter G

What you say about the Vulcans makes sense. Just one point - from what I've read, not all Vulcans try to achieve the Kolinahr and not all of those who try succeed.

Interesting way of looking at Data's "emotions." I certainly agree that he does not have to experience emotion such as humans understand it. We try to understand what he does experience, but it's difficult for most human beings to understand how non-human beings (real or imaginary) experience emotion. There have been comments in various threads along the lines of it's for the best Data doesn't experience the full range and depth of human emotions. I tend to agree with that - imagine a really pissed off Data.

Re: TNG S4: In Theory

One final point - if Vulcans didn't have emotion, why would they have the Kolinahr?

Re: TNG S4: In Theory

@ Peter G

I hear you and that's probably the official take but I wouldn't agree with the Vulcans re: curiosity is not an emotion. How convenient to claim it isn't! Also, I don't think Vulcans or Data were successfully written to have no emotions. It's really quite impossible to have zero emotions. I think any character that truly had no emotion would be boring, flat and unlikable. I can't think of any examples where it was really accomplished in Trek. Of course, this doesn't include small roles where we don't get to know the character. Every time Spock said "fascinating" that is expressing an emotion. I suppose he would disagree. You may as well.

In other words and in my opinion, Vulcans have buried their emotions but not 100% (despite what they claim). I think they feel them but on a very different level than humans. Vulcans often express something so close to emotion that to me they are having to twist it around to convince (themselves) it isn't an emotion. Tuvok was asked if he didn't love his children in "Innocence" and his explanation didn't float. "My attachment to my children cannot be described as an emotion. They are a part of my identity, and I am… incomplete without them." Sounds like love to me. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck....

I really think Data has limited emotions, certainly not the same range or depth as humans, but not just curiosity. I need to pay attention and make a note when I see others. Perhaps the real question is what does it mean to "feel" emotions versus to "have" emotions. He has them, but does he feel them? Something along the lines of he experiences curiosity because it was written into his programming, but he doesn't really feel it the way humans do. He may experience satisfaction, but not really feel it. However, does it matter that it was written into his programming? Can't it still be an emotion? Is this just splitting hairs? Semantics? I'm not sure. On the other hand, he does "miss" people as a natural development of his programming. What does that mean exactly? I think that is an emotion he actually feels. It doesn't matter if it was programmed into him or developed from his programming.

I don't agree with your computer analogy. My desktop is sent update pushes over the internet. If I wasn't on-line, it wouldn't know about them and wouldn't update. It doesn't look for updates. There is a human person (more likely many people) behind the updates, sending them out.