ST: Original Series
ST: Feature Films
ST: Next Generation
ST: Deep Space Nine
Articles & Misc.
The Rating Scale
About the Author
Copyright & Disclaimer
Tools & Delivery
Share this page
By Comment Text
By URL (where posted)
By Comment Author
RSS for this
Total Found: 24,077 (Showing 76-100)
Page 4 of 964
- Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 9:03pm (USA Central)
Intergalactic succubi! Because why not? Oh, and some nonsense about Harry being an alien or something.
Did they even try to explain why the Nizari hate the Taresians so much? I don't think they did. They just hate them because ... reasons, I guess.
Yea, no. Not worth rewatching.
- Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 12:07pm (USA Central)
"If they sold a DS9 box set, this ep and "Profit and Lace" should be separate from the rest and put on one disc as a "free coaster". At least that way you'd technically have all eps if you're a completest" - DVMX
Hahahaha, 100% agree! Though this one is crappy I feel it's much more watchable than Profit and Lace is. That is painful to watch, this one is just "regular" bad.
- Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 10:53am (USA Central)
This thing isn't some misunderstood child... it's been killing people by the thousands. You have 2 options:
1. If it is sentient, it is a mass murderer and needs to be killed
2. If it is not sentient (Lore episode disagrees) then it needs to be culled because it can't be reasoned with.
What exactly are you having an issue here with? You think we should negotiate with a tiger? Or discuss alternate food supplies with a mass murderer? Your approach is completely illogical... like do-gooder Picard.
- Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 2:03am (USA Central)
"One group (pro-Phlox decision) is saying that providing a cure is morally PROHIBITED. The other group is saying that providing a cure is morally COMPULSORY. Both groups deny the moral right of individual choice to dispose of one's resources as one sees fit."
I think what you have said is a bit of a mischaracterization of the debate, though an understandable one.
Granted, there are many systems of morality. But having read, and at times taken part in, this discussion, it seems as if most of the discussion has taken place *within* a system of morality -- namely, the one that is extant on the various Star Trek series, and held by (most) members of Starfleet, in relation to contact with other worlds and other forms of life.
If your point is that there are a variety of moral codes, and an individual has the right to choose between them and so decide what ethical obligations s/he lives under, then you are clearly correct. But people who accept a moral code consequently accept ethical obligations. If your point is that regardless of the moral principles they hold, individuals always have a choice to do as they please, then again, you're right. Moral principles, unlike metaphysical principles, are violable. But choosing to violate them would be doing something you have accepted as wrong.
All of this was my long-winded way of saying that your comment is beside the point. Within the context of the ethical framework in which this discussion has taken place, the act of giving the cure to the Valakians cannot be both morally prohibited and morally compulsory. (It can be neither, but it cannot be both.) Hence, the debate -- which is about what is right in that system. Pointing out that people still have a right to choose, whether you were talking about choosing one's ethical system or about choosing one's actions, is tangential to the main issue -- which is, having accepted a frame of morality (in which some actions are right and some wrong), and having accepted that one has a choice to make (and the right to make it), what should we do?
- Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 1:35am (USA Central)
Thought Experiment #1:
You are the captain of a Federation starship. You receive a distress hail from the dominant species on a nearby planet -- people are dying of a peculiar genetic disorder, and the species as a whole has perhaps a couple of centuries left. (Other species are not directly affected by the disorder, though of course the extinction of the dominant species may eventually lead to massive changes in the biosphere and food chain.) Your ship's doctor investigates, and finds that he can cure the disorder. You can, of course, not project all the possible consequences of intervention.
Consider the above scenario in relation to the following planets, and answer the question: Do you give the society the cure? (Remember to justify your answer.)
a) Vulcan, a planet that is a core member of the Federation.
b) Ventax II, a non-aligned world with a warp-capable society.
c) Valakis, a non-aligned world with a society that is not warp-capable, but has had contact with warp-capable societies.
Thought Experiment #2:
Consider the scenario from Thought Experiment #1, again in relation to the listed planets, with the following difference: instead of a genetic disorder that will eliminate the species within a couple of centuries, the planet is beset by a massive plague that will kill every member of the affected species within three months.
The conjunction of these thought experiments is designed to consider two variables: a) the type of society asking for help, and b) the relative immediacy of the need for help. Good answers will consider such questions as:
a) Is there a "bright line" of ethics that permits interfering with the natural development of Vulcan, but not Valakis, and if so, what is it?
b1) If your answer to a) involves drawing an ethical distinction between the cases based on the Prime Directive, on which side of that line do the Ventaxians fall, and why?
b2) If your answer to a) involves denying the applicability of the Prime Directive to these cases, in what circumstances is the Prime Directive applicable?
c1) If your answers to analogous cases Thought Experiment #1 and Thought Experiment #2 are different based on the time factor, why should a difference in the amount of time available to solve the problem affect a Starfleet officer's principles or actions?
c2) If your answers to analogous cases Thought Experiment #1 and Thought Experiment #2 are the same in spite of the time factor, why should a difference in the amount of time available to solve the problem NOT affect a Starfleet officer's principles or actions?
Those students who need or want extra credit, and who have the time, may also consider suitably adjusted thought experiments related to the non-aligned, non-warp-capable, and completely isolated society that existed on Vaal, pre-Kirk.
- Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 1:15am (USA Central)
Totally agree with Jammer on this one - a very impressive and skillfully put together and well directed episode, Linda Park really pulls it off. The audience is masterfully misled but I did have some of the same thoughts as Auralgami that preclude this episode being perfect, but its undeniably above average.
- Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 1:08am (USA Central)
This is an interesting episode to me, it was entirely predictable and yet - as others have said - I was actually not bored! Maybe it was the high satire aspect of it that kept me watching, sort of thinking - will they go there? Oh yes they do! While its undoubtbly true that Padma Lakshmi is wonderful to look at, and what a good sport Connor Trineer is, or maybe its the increasing "campy-ness" of the whole thing that makes it so compelling.
But it is still below average - zero stars is a bit of a stretch though....
- Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 10:56pm (USA Central)
This episode has always bothered me. Primarily what Comp625 said so well, so I won't repeat that.
I really didn't like Bashir in this episode. He came off as way too preachy and arrogant. As Yanks says above, I do agree that he should have just refused to give the drug. In modern society doctors generally have the right to refuse treatment on moral/ethical grounds, as long as they provide an alternate physician.
It should always be the right of the patient to determine their own treatment and even if they live/die (assuming they are of sound mind). This, to me, is an inalienable freedom worth dying for. This episode dropped the ball though, with both sides of the question.
- Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 7:27pm (USA Central)
Watched this again and the biggest problems are:
1. The idea that only radiation / heat are the issues with flying into the sun. Clearly, the writer had no idea about the science behind it (what about enormous gravity for starters?)
2. "I do not believe the shield will ever work"
It did work. The dude entered the sun and then (albeit supposedly dying) made it back out. In science terms, while not perfect, this would still be a breakthrough.
3. A scientist agrees immediately, and without hesitation, to piloting a test run into the sun. Like his life is meaningless.
4. Klingons don't rate scientists... but she is a Klingon scientist. And how would Klingons get anywhere without scientists?
It's just really shoddy writing. No thought went into the set up at all.
- Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 7:17pm (USA Central)
But it hadn't been asked to stop killing or provided a subsitute energy source in previous episodes.
CE might have had that ability and now they'll never find out. Good luck if they ever run into the same species again.
- Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 7:13pm (USA Central)
I hated the ending to this episode. The whole communication attempt was based on everybody forgetting the events of "Datalore", where it had been established that the CE could be communicated with and that it was hostile towards humanoids. There really was no other option than to kill (why does TNG always use the euphemism "destroy"?) the CE, and it would have been honest of the writers to let Picard give the order to do so. But instead that task was shifted to Marr, who is then presented as mentally deranged by grief. The script could at least have had Picard acknowledge that she probably saved other people from being killed by the CE. Or even better: Worf could have sided with her. But this way, the Enterprise crew gets a desirable outcome without having to take responsibility for it, while looking down on the person who was willing to take that responsibility.
- Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 6:57pm (USA Central)
What is up with Jonathan Frakes in this episode? His facial expression and posture is slightly off in all his scenes. Had me thinking he might have been drunk on set.
- Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 6:44pm (USA Central)
Except that they hadn't tried communcation with CE before.
Except it had been communicated with in previous episode with Lore. And communicating with a rampaging death sentence is not hip. It's a threat and you wipe out a threat of this magnitude - not try to get to know it while it poses an immediate danger.
- Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 3:40pm (USA Central)
"No... it demonstrates that an awful lot of people have faulty thinking. The fact is that this "creature" goes around killing and wiping out. A shark does the same. If the shark is on your beach, you kill it. After trying to communicate with this "creature" and all the while it is destroying... you have no option. That's how the world operates. Anything else is a nonsense. "
Except that they hadn't tried communcation with CE before. Then the lady blows it up when apparently they were on the verge of being able to do so with the CE. So the shark comparison doesn't really hold up.
That said I'm not a fan of the closing of this episode being so negative toward the lady that did it. I'd rather have the ending focused on Riker's reaction since his girlfriend blew up at the beginning.
- Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 11:56am (USA Central)
That's not what irritates me the most about this episode, though... it's how blatant the propaganda is. Look at how the writers wrote this episode:
Expert on the CE is a bitter, twisted, arrogant, closed minded and (often) nasty woman who is out for revenge for the death of her son. She is deliberately portrayed so that any reasonable person will see her in a negative light. The writers don't even attempt to give her some depth... she's the baddie. And why? It's so you are pushed into siding with Picard and Data... (the goodies and mouthpiece for the writers' own opinions).
Instead of people watching this episode and being able to make up their own minds, it tries to lead you by the hand - or rather - brow beat you into agreeing with the writers that Picard's deluded idealism is the correct view. That's the whole purpose of the episode - to force you into agreeing with his position. They couldn't have made it any more blatant without casting Jafar, from Aladdin, as the scientist.
"Oh, CE, yes, it is he, but not as you know it. Read my lips and come to grips with reality. Yes, meet a blast from your past..."
It's really irritating and insulting to have writers who push their own views on the audience by loading the dice in their favour.
- Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 10:39am (USA Central)
Looking for Par'mach in All the Wrong Places
I'll never understand the star trek fandom i guess. How can one watch a show that is so willingly progressive and yet be so staunchingly conservative it's ridiculous?
Because not all the episodes are like that, and because most people are enlightened enough to ignore the short-comings of a fiction if there is some good or some entertainment.
I assume from your comment that you aren't as open-minded and, had Trek been Conservative, you'd refuse to tune in.
Which of us is more tolerant?
- Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 10:04am (USA Central)
The amount of debate over this show demonstrates what a good premise the writers had,
No... it demonstrates that an awful lot of people have faulty thinking. The fact is that this "creature" goes around killing and wiping out. A shark does the same. If the shark is on your beach, you kill it. After trying to communicate with this "creature" and all the while it is destroying... you have no option. That's how the world operates. Anything else is a nonsense.
And most of you know what I am going to say next:
This episode is a symptom of Leftism and idealism. In the real world, a few fanatics might be happy that we are soooo hip and enlightened... but who speaks for the dead and their relatives?
It's stupid. If you think Picard is right, you have a lot to learn. It's not hip to risk and allow mass death.
- Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 4:49am (USA Central)
Tacking into the Wind
I accidently hit submit before I got to the last couple things I wanted to say, the first of which is that from my view on just those moral issues I kinda come off as more pro-Sisko than I am. I love both DS9 and TNG almost equally but for different things, perhaps from an objective view I favor DS9 the most (but for me TNG has a certain intangible "magic" feel to it that makes it difficult to decide, and for me TNG is more suited to watching over and over again), but Picard is easily my favorite Trek captain. (and while I said I could see Picard taking those two controversial actions given the situations, I easily admit that it is more in Sisko's character to do so while Picard may or may not agree, I just think given the context he probably would come around). I also prefer Patrick Stewart over Avery Brooks any day. Also, in my version of utilitarianism "justice" is factored into the equation alongside the more clear "good" and "harm".
While I appreciated Sisko's ruthlessness when it is called for, I thought he too often behaved a little less... civilized/enlightened than how a 24th century highly evolved human Star Fleet captain (even part prophet) should. He kinda lacked diplomatic graces and charisma/charm, and though it was too often necessary to bark like a dog at people, including his crew. Finally to be clear (I can see this being brought up) my take on ther merits of his poisoning the planet in the DMZ is that it far less worthy of approval, but with enough merits to not be condemned either. What really bothered me there though was how he most unenlightenly let his grudge and then his temper guide his decisions without forcing himself to step back and try to calm down and view the situation without letting his personal feelings interfere. If it had not been Michael eddington who poisoned the Cardassian planet I really can't see Sisko choosing such a drastic retaliation, and in a situation where his decision affected so many lives of the planet's residents it was rather déclassé of him to make a choice with his anger and excessive testosterone (to put it mildly). More like the behavior of a brute than a Star Fleet captain, and the crew likely would have been able to not be punished if they had mutinied (for evidence one can refer to Sisko's own hypocritical quote when berating Worf about how Star fleet officers don't put innocents at risk to make their jobs easier or something like that)
And now I better stop before I have to make another post explaining how I didn't mean to sound like I don't like Sisko, which in general I do haha... I just wanted to be fair and balanced given my above strong defense of his actions in my previous post.
- Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 4:10am (USA Central)
Tacking into the Wind
"Not since "In the Pale Moonlight" have I seen this Sisko emerge, who needs something done and intends to see it through, no matter the cost. If it came down to knowing in advance Worf would have to kill Gowron in a traditional Klingon challenge, I doubt Sisko would bat an eye. That's pretty scary. "
I think I'm kind of in the minority in how I view these two (this and actions in Pale Moonlight) acts by Sisko. I was applauding and thinking "it's about time" for his acts in PM, and approved here as well. I guess in my nature I am a little prone to Machiavellian scheming, but only for a just cause. And no, I dont always believe the ends justify the means, but in these situations it is the most logical and in my moral view best way to proceed. This view is falls into the domain of utilitarianism; judging what is right by what does the most good for the greatest number (or causes the least harm). You can view it as sort of adding up "good points", the positive consequences, while subtracting "negative points" for harm/collateral damage/injustice, etc (in theory, and yes it requires some arbitraryness), and this aspect and other restrictions on taking the philosophy too far or too literally prevents it from potentially allowing for the tyranny of the minority by the majority. Kantian morality on the other hand in my view puts far too much emphasis on declaring acts to be right or wrong in more blanket terms; ie. a belief such as "assassination is wrong", no exceptions. I applaud DS9 for taking a step back from the excessively Kantain Trek morality, especially given it's more intense subject matter (don't get me wrong I love TNG but i also kind of accept it as a sci fi like myth /fairy tale; DS9's differences call for a more rational view of morality).
This leads to my key points, that I believe Sisko was clearly right in both cases and honestly to me the fact that he agonized so much and struggle with to me what were clearly the morally correct actions to take in Pale Moonlight shows that Stat Fleet morality is still there, but given cataclysmic stakes it had to be curved back, or else it would have paradoxically been responsible for more harm than good: no romulans entering the war (or at least not until far later)= dominion defeat Alpha Quadrant powers, unprecedented slaughter and then enslavement/domination of survivors. Ultimately it was even potentially in the formula a beat interest to be forced in earlier on. The fooling of or death of one arrogant senator who was happy to gleefully watch his fellow Alpha Quadrant races slowly be defeated and killed just to help quench his thirst for seeing his Rivals be beaten back and to buy his people momentary solace at the price of doom in the long run is more than clearly justified to as Sisko puts it ensure the safety of the Alpha Quadrant. Similar situation and stakes for the order to stop Galron even if it means killing him, except that here it is an even less morally grey area: Galron is willing to submit his own men to the slaughter, thus betraying them as their commander, while simultaneously seriously hurting the alliance's ability to defend itself, safeguard its civilians and win the war, so think of how much harm those actions could easily cause if they make it so one more system fell to the dominion: one ENTIRE PLANET of people, "just one" system, think of how much evil would befall them because of Galron callously (and effectively evily) being willing to allow this as part of his petty popular image promotion campaign. Thus at the time his death was good triumphing over evil.
And for those who point to how Picard handled certain situations, remember that he was never faced with anything approaching the cataclysmic situations and consequences Sisko was. You CANNOT compare the situation of Worf killing Duras to him killing Galron here, due to that (unless you are using the rigid kantian morality and don't accept my view on how utilitarian morality is much more proper and logical for DS9's events in question); look at what's at stake and the consequences, along with the situations. Even in the Pale Moonlight events I could image Picard (like Starfleet command) reluctantly approving of or taking similar actions to Sisko's in order to do what is right, despite his personal discomfort with it (although with less unwarranted violence towards Garak ;) )
- Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 3:08am (USA Central)
Just thought I should add that when I wrote my above post I was in kinda a cranky mood, I have been doing a Voyager re watch using Jammer's ratings to guide me for what are worth watching and I've ran out of all the three and four star episodes but deciding to keep going and thus after a night of watching mediocre Voyager and then reading comments on the episodes (whose mediocrity were giving me a headache) where a vocal minority tries to defend them or pretend they can't understand/see the difference between some of these episodes and good TNG episodes they compare them to got me more irritated. It was in that mood I made my post, singling out Elliot. All arguments about the show aside I believe I should have toned down my rhetoric, as in reading it again it sounds a little too hostile/personal for a debate about a TV series. I apologize.
- Wed, Mar 18, 2015, 11:51pm (USA Central)
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Here's my review. The full experience (including pictures) can be found at my review blog "captainjonreviews.blogspot.com"
When Earth is threatened by a mysterious cloud that destroys everything in its way, Admiral James T. Kirk retakes command of the newly-refitted U.S.S. Enterprise. His mission is to explore what's in the heart of the cloud and, if possible, attempt to reason with any intelligence that's inside before Earth is destroyed.
When Star Trek went off the air in 1969, one newspaper columnist addressed disappointed fans who had waged a letter-writing campaign to keep the show alive with an article that read:
"You Star Trek fans have fought the 'good fight,' but the show has been cancelled and there's nothing to be done now."
Thanks to a little thing called syndication, Star Trek gained second life and developed a cult following. What originally was intended as an attempt by Paramount executives to recoup loses from the show led to the studio giving serious consideration to bring life to a Star Trek feature film. In 1975, Paramount hired Roddenberry to begin development on the feature.
Getting the production off the ground proved to be quite challenging and the studio would decide to return the Star Trek to television with Star Trek: Phase II. But thanks to the one-two punch of Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind in 1977, Paramount exec Michael Eisner decided to make the project a feature film.
Instead of trying to emulate the formula that had worked for Star Wars, Roddenberry and director Robert Wise decided to make Star Trek first venture onto the big screen more along the lines of 2001: A Space Odyssey. With a troubled production that began filming with an incomplete script and post-production woes in the visual effects department, Star Trek: The Motion Picture barely made it on schedule to its December 1979 premiere. Much like 2001, The Motion Picture debuted to mixed reviews that criticized its slow pace and lack of characterization. Unlike 2001, however, which has gone on to become a Science-Fiction classic, The Motion Picture would be overshadowed by its eventual sequel only three years later. One can't help but wonder how The Motion Picture would be regarded if not for the franchise that had been born due to its financial success. In recent a recent viewing I was amazed at how much more I enjoyed the film than I had in the past. In an age where movies move at breakneck speed, TMP is actually a somewhat refreshing change. That's not to say that it should now be considered a classic like 2001. After all, The Motion Picture is still flawed and lacks adequate characterizations or even the heart that was found even in the original 60's TV series. But it was nice to watch a movie that took its time to tell a story, even if that story was rather thin.
One can't help but wonder if there were better ideas floating about during development that could've been used since the story is largely a rehash of a couple of episodes of the 60's TV show, a frustrating decision as something more original should've been told. The thin plot feels as though it's meant to service the visual spectacle instead of being the other way around. On a visual level, The Motion Picture is quite impressive with effects that still hold up today. But much of the film's running time is spent indulging in lengthy establishing shots of space stations and starships. Time that was spent on lengthy establishing shots could've been more effectively used for characterization. Instead we get long stretches of cutting back and forth between visual effects and the characters reacting rather unconvincingly and sometimes comically to things they're supposed to be witnessing on the viewscreen. Most guilty of this is George Takei with his wide-eyed attempt at awe.
One such character seed that's planted but never adequately developed is that which follows Kirk, portrayed in a fairly somber and serious performance by William Shatner that is a striking departure from the show. Kirk is now an admiral at Starfleet Command who hasn't been on a starship in over two years. As the mysterious intruder threatens Earth, Kirk coerces his way back into command of the Enterprise, bumping Will Decker (Stephen Collins in one of the film's better performances) out of the captain's chair. Collins brings confidence and passion to the role and plays well against Shatner's Kirk making the tension between the two of them believable. Though Decker has enough reason to be upset with Kirk, he fears that his new captain's actions are not only against the best interests of the ship but the mission as well. The Enterprise has been completely redesign and it's a design with which Kirk is not familiar and he doesn't hide those concerns from Kirk. To Kirk'a surprise, not only does McCoy side with Decker but goes one step further by saying that Kirk is obsessed with the Enterprise and that he intends to keep the starship. This has the beginnings of interesting character work that dates back to the original series but goes nowhere after McCoy calls Kirk out on his actions. Unfortunately, the film's ultimate resolution leaves the pieces in a place where Kirk doesn't need to be held accountable nor be put in the position of having to return the Enterprise.
Also planted early on but not developed nearly enough is the love story between Decker and Ilia (Persis Khambatta), a precursor for the Riker/Troi dynamic in Star Trek: The Next Generation. Most frustrating about this character arc is that it's the most important one in the movie and yet very little is done to develop it. Outside of one conversation between Decker and Ilia, nothing is done to establish the connection between these two characters and make us feel for their relationship. Thus there's no impact when Ilia is taken by the V'Ger probe. Nor do Decker's attempts to rekindle any feelings buried within the Ilia probe carry any resonance because there was nothing there for us to believe in anyway. While Collins works well as a foil for Shatner, he's less effective with Khambatta as the two of them have no chemistry. Khambatta, especially, is stiff and rather uninteresting. Had more time been spent developing the relationship, perhaps Decker's actions in the film's climax would've carried more emotional weight. Instead it's a visual marvel that emotionally feels hollow and falls flat.
The third character thread is that of Spock. At the film's outset, Spock is on Vulcan having left Starfleet in order to go through a Vulcan ritual to purge all emotion. Midway through the ritual, Spock feels a powerful presence from space that stirs his human blood. Spock (in a stiff and uninvolved performance by Leonard Nimoy) returns to the Enterprise to explore the V'Ger spaceship for his own personal interests, perhaps the most intriguing of all the setup character threads. Just like he did with Kirk, McCoy questions Spock's motives and whether the Vulcan officer will sacrifice the safety of the ship for his own personal needs. Unlike with Kirk, more time and development is put into Spock's arc but mainly because it helps us to learn more about V'Ger. However, it's never really clear for what Spock is searching nor do we get a clear understanding what he supposedly finds that helps him to find resolution. Perhaps the finale would've carried more power and meaning had it been Spock who had merged with V'Ger instead of Decker. Of course, that would've removed any hope of bringing the character back for the subsequent sequels but it certainly would've been an interesting conclusion here.
The rest of the cast and characters are sadly nothing more than cardboard cutouts left to provide lines of exposition here and there while having no life or personality of their own. This sadly includes DeForest Kelley's Dr. McCoy, who wanders on and off the bridge at random as though he's walking about trying to have any reason to be there. Though he provides a few lines here and there that question the motives of both Kirk and Spock in a half-baked attempt to keep them accountable for their actions, McCoy has little else to do in the rest of the movie.
That's not to say The Motion Picture is all bad. There's plenty to admire. Robert Wise is an excellent director with an impressive filmography (The Sound of Music and The Day the Earth Stood Still) and he manages to craft a visually magnificent film. Before 2009's reboot, Star Trek: The Motion Picture was easily the most epic film in the movie franchise. While the first half manages to capture the romance and beauty of space and starships, Wise brings a sense of mystery and intrigue in the second half as the crew explores the secrets of V'Ger. The ultimate revelation that V'Ger is the lost NASA probe "Voyager 6" is interesting and the resolution also had promise. As mentioned before, however, the resolution would've been better had more depth existed in the characters of Decker and Ilia as well as their relationship.
The Enterprise gets a new but familiar makeover that works well and Wise fills the sets with plenty of extras to give the ship life. The uniforms are a bit on the drab, colorless side which is a big departure from the series but they're serviceable.
Easily the most noteworthy piece of The Motion Picture's production, however, is Jerry Goldsmith's Academy Award-nominated score. From its opening notes all the way to the final seconds of the closing reel, Goldsmith's score is rich and romantic filled with themes and motifs that carry the movie. The long sequences of visual effects work as well as they do because of Goldsmith's score which is not only probably the finest music in the franchise but also some of the best movie music ever written.
The most frustrating aspect is that there is plenty of potential to be found in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. It's performances are stiff and characterizations are lacking despite magnificent visuals and a story that has mystery and wonder. Perhaps if more time had been spent fleshing out more of the ideas that are found here, The Motion Picture could have been brilliant. Instead we get a movie that's somewhat enjoyable as its flaws drag down its strengths.
Writing: 1.0 / 2
Characters: 1.0 / 2
Acting: 1.0 / 2
Entertainment: 1.0 / 2
Music: 1 / 1
Visuals: 1 / 1
TOTAL: 6.0 / 10
- Wed, Mar 18, 2015, 8:39pm (USA Central)
"This show always was irritating to me. A shuttlecraft designed to go through SPACE, with all its extremes, is not going to turn into "an oven" after landing on a planet. The whole dang thing was ridiculous."
Shuttle power was off, so the a/c was not working. :)
I thought the garbage scow plot was fine. And a lot of cool FX scenes. And yes I liked the video game fountain thing and the mystery of it, we're not always going to find who built things or whatnot. Yes it's a means to a plot point (Wes overcoming the miner and the problem to save Picard, more of a relationships struggle), but the plot point is solid so it's fine. Great desert scenes. Great music. Nice send-off for Wes.
Two things I wonder about:
1. Why did the shuttle have to land at all? It's not an airplane. Losing a thruster shouldn't matter. Turn all engines off and just wait in space. Was it caught in the planet's gravitational field?
2. A crash landing like that should have killed everyone in the shuttle. I mean… no seat belts? In a car people can die going 40mph (or less) without a seat belt. Then again, great pilot Picard WAS at the helm.
- Wed, Mar 18, 2015, 1:39pm (USA Central)
Jammer: "Priceless is Picard's devastated reaction when the phasers accidentally kill the creature. It's so wonderfully Picard: We came out here to study this wonderful creature and we have killed it"
I'm glad you noticed this; it seems everyone else commenting on this episode is caught up in debating whether or not Geordi is a creep.
I thought the scene where they first discovered the life-form and the subsequent disaster showcased some of Patrick Stewart's understated acting at its very best. If you watch his face, you can intensely feel his sense of childlike excitement at discovering the unknown object in space, then he waxes poetic about living between the stars when he discovers it is a living being. He then shows caution and great sensitivity for not upsetting or alarming it; this turns to concern at the problems start to develop. Then when he realizes he is forced to use phasers, he hesitates so long in giving Worf the command, it's like he doesn't want to believe what is happening. Finally when it happens, the worst thing possible results: the creature dies before their very eyes.
Picard's powerlessness to save it and the feeling of his childlike joy and wonder turning into horror at the realization at what he's done was so acute, I wanted to burst into tears. But he did all this just with a look in his eye and an expression on his face. Patrick Stewart really is a great A-level actor and his heavy duty dramatic presence is a huge part of why this show about space people in costumes and little models and CGI moves us so deeply. You can feel his character's great intelligence and sensitivity, his noble intentions, and he makes it all feel very real and believable.
- Wed, Mar 18, 2015, 1:39pm (USA Central)
The House of Quark
I enjoyed this ep a lot. I think of the things I liked about it was that it showed consequences for Quark's actions plus a very pleasing resolution.
- Wed, Mar 18, 2015, 1:23pm (USA Central)
"DLPB - Mon, Mar 3, 2014 - 7:33am (USA Central)
If you ignore the silly premise of this episode, and the fact Kate Muldrew sounds like she is having an orgasm at one point, it's actually a pretty entertaining episode. The show needed more character interactions like this, but sadly, they did away with the whole Federation v Marquis angle early on."
I agree with this, and its also one of the reasons I like this episode as well.
Page 4 of 964