Comment Stream

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

@ Dom: although I do know what a rate of return is, you may be right in that more than a handful of previous star trek movies had a higher rate of return than this one did. I do not know what movies 1 through 8 made overseas and cannot find this info online... if you know of a site that would be great. I don't know what the studios want and don't know if THEY know what they want in terms of budget/quantity. I mnknow little to nothing about Hollywood accounting-the real, actual accounting. I do know that the industry can be quite good at deluding itself into thinking it is giving the public what it wants. More than one studio executive has stated that studio research shows that moviegoers "love" the jalf-hour's worth of commercials moviegoers must sit through. I would love to see that research.

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

I must confess, all snark aside, but I was not paying particular attention to the the semiotic properties and qualities of STID because I was too enraged that the movie did not follow the Aristorelian unities (a concept which I only found out about when I googled the phrase "are there any rulers for good drama?"). Aristotle's Poetics dictated that a successful drama must have the unities of place (take place in one location), time (must take place essentially over a year) and action (must have as close to zero subplots as possible).

Thankfully, modern folks understand that good drama (or, merely entertaining drama which is all that STID wants to be-and I believe it achieves at that modest goal) need not be limited by such artificial restraints. Likewise, people know that not every action in a film that is taken by a character must be directly motivated by a specific, on-screen exchange of dialog telling us why the character took the action, lest the action be criticized as a "plot hole."
To take an example: near the end of the movie, Spock states to Kirk something along the lines of ...."because you are my friend," to explain the motivation for a prior action. Some would argue that if, before this line of dialogue, there was no line of dialogue that directly established the friendship, the friendship did not exist and the utterance of the word "friend"by Spock is evidence of poor writing, poor character motivation, or constitutea a plot hole, etc.

I respectfully submit that the friendship could have been "properly" dramatically developed (and that it was) by other devices in the movie- devices that had the cumulatifwle effect of allowing us to imply or infer a friendship. Devices such ad ACTIONS taken that allowed the audience to realize there was a friendship. Whether this movie contained poor characterizations and plot holes is a matter of debate because just as there is no fixed definition of Star Trek, there is no fixed definition of the ingredients needed to create good "character motivation.". Unless, that is, if you subscribe to a specific theory like Aristotle's, in which case, please feel free to share with all commenters here the elements of that theory.

Also, there were certainly times when this movie was illogical and dumb. For an illogical, dumb action movie that contained a fair amount of trash, though, STID was pretty good. Find me an action movie that you think had no or few plot holes and I will tear it apart, just as you can tear apart one I would name (actually, I would not name one because it is a fool's exercis. Shakespeare himself was criticized for having the nerve to use the deux ex machina plot device).

As the late film critic Pauline Karl stated in her famous essay, "Trash, Art and the Movies," (Google it, it is an ezcellent read): "I've never trusted the instincts of people who claim they were born with such good taste in movies that they did not first have to wade their way through trash to get to "art," meaning that if one cannot or will not look for or appreciate simple entertainment value in a movie, why is that person bothering to go to the movies in the first place?


If you think that STID has no entertainmnent value, by all means, that is your right, and that is an argument you can make - with facts and reasoning and by evaluating what is actually there on the screen. I can/have/would/will do this, can't you?

BTW, Miss Karl praised TWOK and in the opening line of her review called out "wonderful, dumb fun.! That is exactly how I would describe movies 2 and 12 myself

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

@Matt- Thanks for the fact-specific rebuttal to many of the criticisms aimed at this movie. I think that the first question that needs to be asked when criticizing a movie or TV show is "was this entertaining in some way?" "Did it engage my interest?" If a movie fails to do this, it probably will not be a very good movie, let alone a good quote "Star Trek" movie. Ifa person only ooccipies himself with the question of "Is this a good Star Trek movie?" (Whatever that means; what Star Trek "is" is a question to which there can be multiple and even inconsistent answers) Or "Does this movie feel like StarTrek?", cchances are the person will not get around to the "entertaining" question. I find that sad, because preoccupation with the latter two questions can cause q person to refuse to be entertained. I think-I believe-that whatever thing Star Trek is about, or ""stands for," it, at its best, goes about it in an entertaining way. how good did thisnmovie measure up as entertainment? Enough to allow me to say it was worth at least part if the ticket price. That ought to count for something.

Re: TNG S7: All Good Things...

Watching this episode brought me to tears 19 years ago and so has reading this review just now, knowing it will be Jammer's last for a star trek episode. Thanks for all of the great years of great reviews,.Jammer. as Q said, and is indeed true, "All good things must come to an end." See you....out there...

Re: TNG S6: Suspicions

Also, not that anyone is counting, but this is the SECOND time in season six that Crusher's ordering an autopsy against a family/culture's wishes is used as a major plot point (the other time being in that other keeper of an episode, "Man of the People". I guess there is one difference between the two episodes: In "Suspicions", we do not know who the killer is, and we do not care. In "Man of the People", we DO know who the killer is, and we do not care). How tired.

Re: TNG S6: Man of the People

Ian-

This episode provides several moments of unintentional hilarity. The opening scene, with the old woman screaming at Troi.

Ambassador Alkar stating, matter-of-factly, that "most of my receptacles last longer than this...."

Picard's response, with proper English accent: "rrrrrrrrrrrreceptacles!"

And then the talk Picard has with the Ambassador about how the Ambassador's desire to clear his head of negative thoughts does not justify "brrrrrrrrrrutalizing her [Troi]." (The whole notion that a mediator can only be effective without having to deal with all those messy background emotions is patent nonsense, if you think about it - which is more than the writers did). The notion that the Federation would grant the Ambassador immunity from prosecution even if he killed someone is likewise idiotic.

And then Dr. Crusher stating something to the effect of "We haven't got long... He may find another receptacle" (what are the odds she would use the Ambassador's ludicrous description of the people he used to "flood with psychic waste" (another hilarious line).

And then the Ambassador gets his traveling companion to undergo the "receptacle" ceremony with him in such a hurried manner that if she had half a brain she'd realize the guy was a lunatic.....

Unfortunately, the moments of hilarity (even the intentional one with Ensign Janeway) do not make up for the fact that this episode is essentially on auto-pilot, with no sense of urgency, poor line readings and complete illogic (how can a mediator empathize with either side if he refuses to invoke any feelings from which to draw upon?)

Re: ENT S2: Dawn

What struck me about this episode was how.... grungy and poorly lit it was. Perhaps the visual ugliness was meant to obscure how thin the plot was...

Vrey little happens in this episode. It is formulaic and pedestrian..... and for some reason, it moves SOOOO slowly. That would not have been such a problem had there been a compelling storyline to be found, but since there was none to be found, the episode just plods...

I also never believed that Trip and the alient were REALLY able to communicate with each other. One or the other managed to pick up on a few "choice" words spoken by the other, but it was astoninshing that Trip kept speaking in English over and over and somehow hoped the more vociferous he became the more likely the alien was to hear it.

In Darmok, we believed that the characters gradually came to understand each other. The "understanding" in this episode is a pre-ordained plot contrivance.

That, plus the fact that most ofmthe episode was a thudding bore, makes this a 1 and 1/2 star entry in my book

Re: MLB: Just add instant replay already

The baseball "purists" who are against the addition of some form of instant reply (that would allow for correction, for example, of obviously wrong calls on whether a ball was caught, or whether a runner is out or sage) go on about the "integrity" of the game, but they are deluding themselves.

The "integrity" of the game has already been compromised by a decades-long steroid scandal (with respect to which baseball has taken some measure of corective action) In 1988, the rules on balks were changed such that it was much easier for a balk to be called (the rules were changed back to what they had been, by the next season). In 2002, another rule was changed when the All-Star Game for that year ended in a tie. Commissioner Selig decided virtually on the spot that summer that from now on, an incentive would be given to the team who won the All-Star game: the League that won the game would get home field advantage in the World Series (talk about an irrational solution to a non-problem). And yes, as you noted, we now have instant replay for home run calls.

In each instance, a rule has been changed (or changed back). Some of the changes are for the better, some are for the worse, some have not measurably affected the game. But the fact these changes had to be instituted shows that baseball is not a brand-new pristine sport never touched by scandal, controversy or confusion. In short, it is not, pardon the phrase, a perfect game. Its integrity is only as good as the integrity of those who play the game and make the calls, and all of these people are just human.

Also, being that we are just human, we gradually accept change - sometimes graciously, sometimes resentfully, sometimes in passing. But life goes on. The American League uses a Designated Hitter. Baseball survived. Home runs are now reviewed. The game has survived. Every change thought to bring about the world has simply brought... another tomorrow, another game. Life goes on.

This particular call should not be reversed (if it were, though, again, the universe would not cease to exist; in the Olympics, there are precedents for literally going back in time and changing the results - such as in the 2002 Winter Games Figure Skating Pairs competition - no "rule" there explicitly allowed for the awarding of a tie, but none prohibited it - just as is the case with the facts of this perfect game).

Who, exactly, would be harmed by the introduction of instant replay? Would it slow down a game? Sure, but anyone who has watched a Yankees-Red Sox game recently knows that games are already much longer than they used to be, what with additional commercials, pitchers taking more time between pitchers. If extending the length of a game is a problem, find a way to speed it up, for example, by only allowing a pitcher to throw back to first to prevent a runner from stealing so many times per at-bat, or by limiting the number of time-outs a pitcher or batter can ask for. Big deal. "Integrity" (which I define as making sure the players on both teams are subject to the same rules, of which they have awareness, and which are fair and applied consistently) will not be compromised.

As Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said, "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." Baseball already "despoiled its northern woods," so to speak, by allowing for replay in select instances a few years ago. Naturally, as noted above the world did not come to an end. It will not with the use of instant replay either. If anything, allowing the use of instant replay might reduce the number of brawls (which, by the way, slow down the length of a game) and might even serve as a learning tool to make umpires more concscientious. Isn't that a goal we can all agree is worthwhile?

To sum up, quoting Homles again, "It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, or the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past."

Re: Review: Microsoft Windows 7

I read this on wikipedia and almost fell out of my chair: "Some Vista Ultimate users have expressed concerns over Windows 7 pricing and upgrade options. Windows Vista Ultimate users wanting to upgrade from Windows Vista to Windows 7 must either pay $219.99 to upgrade to Windows 7 Ultimate or perform a clean install, which requires them to reinstall all of their programs." Poor souls. As Vista was mass-released in 2006 and Windows 7 did not officially receive the name "Windows 7" until the following year, maybe it's called 7 because 7 is a lucky number?

Re: VOY S7: Friendship One

I agree with Jammer overall about this episode. While Janeway's "not worth a single life" preposterous closing line is not just its pedestrian, hypocritical stupidity (her entire existence is a walking repudiation of that line), there is something much more wrong about it.

That something is an example of what Jammer and others have accurately described as the fatal twin flaws of Star Trek: total lack of continuity in storytelling, and its (related) cousin of total disregard for character consistency (or for character generally). Regarding flaw #1, how many times has Janeway learned (or more accurately, have the writers preached) the virtues of space exploration even if it means putting lives in danger? I'm reminded of the episode "Random Thoughts." Seven tells Janeway in that episode (the one where the crew explores a planet where violent thought is punished by engrammatic memory purge) that if Janeway's goal is to get home, she is pursuing it in a most efficient manner. Says Seven, "You constantly impose your own obstacles toward achieving that goal by this process of exploration, borne of a desire, you say, to learn more about aliens and increase your knowledge base. Well, if you're going to be inefficient and make a detour to every planet you visit for the sake of learning more about people, maybe you should at least try learning about what their laws are in advance (i.e. because of your failure to learn these laws, B'Elanna's life is now at stake.) Janeway, knowing that her exploring this planet may cost B'Elanna's single life, intones, "We don't explore space because we have to - we do it because we WANT to." An unabashed, ignorant, and evasive declaration extolling the virtues of space exploration. Such delcarations (and attendant acts) were made throughout the show, ad nauseum, in the seven years leading up to this episode and in the few thereafter. Again, the lessons of those episodes - "space exploration is good" (see, e.g., "One Little Ship" are thrown out the window, good one day only, no one learns anything from them, because, why, in the next self-contained episode, with a similar premise, the writers decide, just for the sake of it, to have a character arbitrarily draw a contradictory conclusion. Total inattentiveness to storytelling consistency. Which, of course, automatically results in (yes, flaw #2, 12:00 high, coming fast) characters behaving internally inconsistently. How can we even say, in a sense, that Janeway's comment is stupid, when the writers haven't even made any attempt to make her a smart individual in the first place by having her act consistently in response to similar situations (or by having her act inconsistently, but explaining the reasons for her doing so) in the first place? To paraphrase Lewis Carroll, if someone has tried to make you believe six implausible things before breakfast, does that person really sound any more ridiculous when, right after breakfast, he or she spouts another implausibility? The "implausibilties" here are having the "characters" say whatever the plot requires of them one day to achieve a desired jerry-rigged effect. The next day, the same character will say the exact opposite if it suits the contrived situation's storytelling purposes.

If there's one line that shows how self-contained episodic storytelling is 1) both properly given a dirty name when the writers don't care about the characters or situations, as well as 2) a device which frees the writers from ever HAVING to care about the characters or situations, Janeway's closing line is it.

Pathetic.

By the way, though, maybe it's just me, but this episode's teaser was one of the most awesome two minutes in Star Trek history. We see the Friendship One probe, accompanied by the strains (and, as ominous Trek-composed music appears, straining),of Vivaldi's "Spring," and within the span of barely over a minute and a half, the tone goes from mysterious to sonorously optimistic, to uncertain, to ominous, all at once, with action, music, and dialogue all working in harmony to convey the changes in tone. Awesome.

Re: TNG S3: The Best of Both Worlds, Part I

Re: BBW Pt. 1: "And there's a haunting, quiet discussion as well, with contemplations of The End, in which Picard and Guinan wax philosophic in the face of possibly inevitable decimation. Picard's contemplation of the end of humanity's role in history is the epitome of grace under pressure, as he reflects upon it in a larger context of history: "Will this be the end of our civilization? Turn the page." Hints that would later add to the speculative fire abound. Guinan: "Nelson never returned from Trafalgar." Picard: "No, but the battle was won." Will this conflict, even if victorious, see the end of Picard? And Guinan's testament to the human spirit offers reassurance: "As long as there's a handful of you to keep the spirit alive, you will prevail." It's brilliant writing.

It damn well is. This scene is as well-written as the scene in Henry V (the speech presaging the Battle of Agincourt) by a certain famous playwright. It is utterly inspiring in its ability to bring to the fore feelings that some people thought they had buried and destroyed: that no matter how bad things may seem, they will get better.
Whenever I am concerned about how I will handle a difficult event (such as the Bar Exam I am taking Tuesday and Wednesday),I watch this scene - not to "remind" myself that I will "prevail" - but to remind myself of what Guinan implicitly laid bare: that diligence, hard work and decency are ultimately what will cause all who possess those qualities to "survive" - to have made a difference in the affairs of humanity; and that, even when we are sweating the large stuff, and even when we thus can't "put things into perspective," the will to live somehow makes even the "large stuff" not irrelevant, but conquerable; there's always a chance of prevailing even in the worst-case scenario and that fighting the battle is itself a form of victory-of prevailing. I watch these scene when I am at my worst, as a "good luck charm," and just when I need inspiration, and regardless of the result of the "particular" battle, the scene -and recognition of what it says - is what allows me to keep on fighting, even when nothing else does.