Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:

Total Found: 348 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 14
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 8:28am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Will You Take My Hand?

The point isn't even whether it was murder or not (which it was). The point is Michael deliberately botched the mission she believed was necessary to stop the war. Whether she was right that killing him would make the war worse and capturing him could stop it, the important thing is she believed it. And she just shoots the guy in the back after deliberately deactivating the stun setting. Seriously.

And not ten minutes earlier she was ready to throw her career away and betray her mentor on the theory that she could prevent the war. Holy mentally unstable mother of $$$. This loose cannon was raised by Vulcans? Sarek and Amanda should be jailed.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 7:55am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S4: Night Terrors

"A minor point: if I recall correctly, every "element" named in this episode, other than hydrogen, is fictitious. And finally, an even more minor point: the text written under the ship's archived image of hydrogen begins with the sentence "stored as deuterium". Yet, the actual picture depicts protium.

Yes, I am a nerd."

I am going to outnerd you and point out that it is inconceivable that an explosion generated from a chemical reaction with hydrogen, no matter what weirdo fictitious element the aliens had, could possibly equal even a fraction of the explosive force of what the Enterprise could already produce using its fusion reactors to say nothing of a matter anti matter explosion like what their photon torpedoes produce or what powers their warp core.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Wed, Feb 14, 2018, 5:40am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Will You Take My Hand?

"I have a different theory: they went so far to left field trying to be edgy and dark in the pilot that after they fact they realized that the murder of T'Kuvma was irredeemable and could never be explained to the audience as being a well-meaning error. It was murder in cold blood, and no coming back from it. So they chose to simply pretend it had never happened and never mention it again, effectively retconning the events of the pilot as of the very next episode. I agree with you that it was an error on their part, but one that at the time they certainly intended. They were just too clueless about Trek morals to realize that such a despicable act wouldn't ever be acceptable in a Trek setting for a character that we're supposed to respect. So they just dropped it from their canon and that's that."

I guess we will never know Peter. But honestly, that scene doesn't play like a murder in my mind.

What it seems like is the mission goes sideways and Michael, partly in shock at seeing her mentor stabbed, shoots the man WHO IS IN THE PROCESS of stabbing her and is still attacking her.

Imagine a real life situation where a man is on top of your friend stabbing that friend as you watch. You take out your gun and shoot him in the back. Murder? Absolutely not! You are legally justified to save your friend, even if your friend might be doomed by this point. Using deadly force to stop a brutal attack on another isn't murder! Georgiou was still alive!

But that is what it would be in a world where "stun" settings don't exist. That is how the scene makes most sense to me - which is why I hypothesize that someone at some point in the creative process didn't know about the stun setting or didn't appreciate its implication.

I agree that Michael's act is undeniably murder in this context, but I really have a hard time accepting that was intended, regardless of what was shown on screen. I think this was a mistake in more ways than one. Signals crossed? The left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing? Someone adding the stun setting to kill setting change after the fact to fix the continuity problem of Michael killing a man with a phaser set to stun but inadvertantly turning their series protagonist into a murderer?
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 8:05pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Will You Take My Hand?

"Not to my knowledge. I don't recall it EVER being discussed. It's said -- over and over again -- that Michael bears responsibility for the war, but the exact reasons why she bears that responsibility are never discussed."

Exactly. Notice how even Jammer forgets the murder and focuses on the mutiny. I think that in the script, Michael was acting in self defence, or somehow protecting Georgiou. Or perhaps the script itself does not know about the "stun" setting on the phaser, but that detail was added later by someone else?

I truly believe the murder simply did not happen as far as this story's master plan, that its portrayal was a mistake. I don't know much about how these scripts go from paper to screen but I think I am right about this.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 5:18pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Will You Take My Hand?

Here's a question: does the show ever overtly acknowledge Michael's decision to kill T'Kuvma? I'm serious: does it ever come out overtly in the text? I still have a suspicion that this was not actually in the script, regardless of what we saw on screen- that it was some kind of mistake or snafu that it was portrayed the way it was.

But you guys would know as I haven't been able to watch for a long time since I cancelled my subscription.1
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 1:29pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Will You Take My Hand?

As an aside on Mary Sues, they are typically thought to be author proxies like Bella Swan or Wesley Crusher (Gene Rodenberry's middle name was Wesley!) but as Peter alludes to, it is not always the case.

Wesley does not suddenly become a great character or less of a Mary Sue if it turns out he was actually made by a faceless commitee versus being a proxy for Rodenberry. I thought Rey in Force Awakens was a mild Mary Sue character and I nevet presumed she was an author insert (my guess is she was hatched by a Disney committee)

Alot of commentators get worked up about whether the label applies to this or that character or criticize the label as being demeaning to female writers and to their characters. But this misses the point: the problem with this sort of character is it's just bad writing to have a golden character that somehow transcends the ordinary rules of the universe he/she inhabits, and wins almost by fiat. It is especially obnoxious when it seems the writing is in the tank for a character that the audience might find objectionable - like trying to enjoy a sporting event where it's obvious that the game is rigged!

Now this sort of thing isn't always fatal to a story. If you have an exceptionally likeable or charismatic character played by a great actor, a la Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lechter, you can catch lightning in a bottle and essentially win the audience over so that they forgive the story's shortcomings. But this is hard to do. James Spader is another actor who has pulled this sort of thing off in shows like Boston Legal.

So if Michael Burnham was this mezmerizing character with a tour de force performance by SMG I think people would be alot more forgiving of the Mary Sue qualities. But the writing is just so flagrantly bad (the one-two punch of Burnham's mutiny and her murder of the Klingon leader basically sealed her fate in pilot!) and SMG delivers such an uncharismatic, sedate, lifeless, boring performance - it becomes almost a perfect storm. It really is of Wesley Crusher proportions.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Mon, Feb 12, 2018, 1:05pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: The War Without, The War Within

I should add to my comment that I do think that SMG is a very weak actress, or perhaps has simply been miscast. But I don't think her acting is the real source of the hate against her. The blame falls squarely with the writing and the compulsion to make this character the centre of the universe.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Mon, Feb 12, 2018, 12:57pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: The War Without, The War Within

Artymiss, I can't speak for others, but I hated Burnham for the similar reasons that I hated Westley Crusher, only amplified by 10x because at least Wesley was a small part of an ensemble. Imagine season 1 of TNG only cut out 90% of the rest of the cast like Picard, Data, Geordie, Worf, Troi, Crusher and imagine Wesley taking all that extra oxygen. You wanna know what hate is?

Sure Burnham may not be an author insert like Westley but she's got all the hallmarks of what everyone despises about Mary Sue characters.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Mon, Feb 12, 2018, 9:59am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: The War Without, The War Within

"Just to say I completely agree with your comments re the Sonequa Martin-Green criticism on here."

It was a pretty vile comment, accusing anyone critical of Green's acting of racism, "thinly veiled" or otherwise. The beauty of such a personal attack / motive speculation is that it's non falsifiable, and if people deny it, it's seen as further evidence of guilt.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Fri, Feb 9, 2018, 4:15pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: The War Without, The War Within

"TNG Sarek(/Unification) was a different deeper meld to counteract Bendi syndrome and is totally not pertinent to this discussion"

Source please?
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Fri, Feb 9, 2018, 9:40am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: The War Without, The War Within

The peril in comparing a fictional horror to a real life one is that just making the comparison may seem like trivializing the real deal.

I mean if you take, say, Darth Vader, and compare him to Hitler, Vader is undoubtedly worse in the sense that he murdered billions versus Hitler's millions. Enslaving a galaxy is worse than enslaving a continent.

Yet people will take offense if you put the two figures in the same conversation.

I don't think we are really arguing whether a fictional mind "rape" is worse than a real one or whether the two things are categorically similar. I think the issue is whether it's unseemly to even have the conversation in the first place.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Fri, Feb 9, 2018, 9:28am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: The War Without, The War Within

I'll answer your question with a question Mertov. Which aspect of rape do you think is the most damaging, the physical or the mental? And if the mental aspect is the more serious one (which I think it is) do you see how a purely mental invasion, in essence, skipping the middleman, could be as bad or worse?
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Fri, Feb 9, 2018, 9:19am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: The War Without, The War Within

Mertov to be fair we are talking about something fictional here that by its nature cannot be seen. And for the record I don't read Peter G. or others to be saying that forced mind meld is the *same experience* as non consensual sex. It is merely a type of rape - perhaps worse, but not the same.

I mean I didn't have a horrible traumatic reaction to watching Chekov in the Agony Booth in "Mirror Mirror". I wouldn't expect someone who was waterboarded to have a PTSD flashback from watching the agony booth scene for many reasons.

Yet if you ask me if the agony booth is "torture" it is pretty easy for me to answer yes. And I will even say without too much hesitation I would rather be waterboarded than be put in the booth - and that is not denigrating or downplaying the experience of people who were waterboarded!
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Fri, Feb 9, 2018, 8:48am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: The War Without, The War Within

No Trent, Nomad gave explicit permission. Not that ot made the scene any less ludicrous, lol.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Fri, Feb 9, 2018, 8:40am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: The War Without, The War Within

Mertov we are talking about something fictional here (mindreading) but I'm a little baffled by your outrage.

Let me get this straight: you think someone invading your *thoughts* is less invasive and violating than having sex with someone against their will?

Incidentally, I'd suggest that a mind meld is far more invasive and violating even than mindreading, as this involves *merging* of two minds. So it isn't even like the psi cops from Babylon 5 who can "scan" you. In the case of a MM you temporarily *become* the other person and vice versa. In Sarek and Unification that was some pretty heavy stuff.

But you still think a physical violation is worse? Really?

Gonna have to agree to disagree I guess.

Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Fri, Feb 9, 2018, 7:50am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: The War Without, The War Within

"But I think Jeri Ryan is excellent and as a gay guy I've never once thought about her as an erotic object"

You win the internet with that comment. Bravo sir.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Fri, Feb 9, 2018, 5:52am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: The War Without, The War Within

"My impression (from STVI and the last DSC ep) is that mind melds are no more or less invasive than an accurate polygraph type test."

Respectfully, if you came to that conclusion after watching TNG - Sarek, Unification or even TOS Devil in the Dark you're bonkers.

As a total side note / tangent about polygraphs, they're pseudoscience garbage and I hate how even today I read stories in the news where it cites someone passing a polygraph or failing one as evidence of anything.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Feb 8, 2018, 2:05pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: The War Without, The War Within

I don't know how good Jeri Ryan is in general as an actress, but you don't need to be a great actor / actress in general to be great in a specific role. Brent Spiner certainly proved this point in my mind. For me Jeri Ryan was great as 7 of 9. Call it astute casting, good writing, whatever, but she was. I don't think her looks were the reason for her generally positive reviews or Troi and T'Pol would have enjoyed similar success and popularity. Ryan did well in spite of her looks and status as sex symbol, not because of it.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Wed, Feb 7, 2018, 2:58pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: The War Without, The War Within

Dom you hit the nail on the head. There is nothing wrong with depicting an unhinged or unstable character in fiction. But the writers seem hell bent on twisting the narrative to force us to see Burnham sympathetically, to trust their blueprint for her character and not our lying eyes.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Wed, Feb 7, 2018, 2:44pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: The War Without, The War Within

Ubik you focus on the mutiny but neglect the part where she murders the Klingon leader, right after imploring Giorgiou not to kill him for fear it would make him a martyr. She just shoots the guy in the back, going out of her way to kill when she had the obvious option to stun (you know, completing her mission as she claimed was cruicial to prevent the war not 10 minutes earlier)

Not only is Burnham self-centred and undisciplined, she is emotionally volatile to the point of being unhinged. Sisko loses it when Jennifer died but to his credit, he doesn't start a war over it.

On your second point, you are equivocating between following UNETHICAL orders versus following orders you merely believe to be wrong calls. Even in today's military a soldier has an obligation not to follow an order to do something immoral like torturing or murdering non combatants. But no soldier anywhere gets to just disobey an order merely because she thinks it's the wrong call, no matter how many lives she thinks will be saved in the process.

There is no equivalence between mutinying against Georgiou because Burnham thought she made the wrong call vis a vis the Klingons versus obeying Lorca's illegal orders to exploit / torture innocent likely sentient life.

If the first season is really setting up this comparison then it's a hopelessly false one.

But you know my personal theory is that the writers never even intended Burnham to murder the Klingon and I think they've essentially retconned that act out of existence implicitly by never bringing it up again. The scene may have just been horribly constructed or the direction messed up or perhaps it was badly edited, but my feeling is, despite what is plain and obvious from the scene that Burnham murdered the Klingon in revenge for Giorgiou, we are somehow meant to think that it was some sort of self-defence or inadvertance - the show is really that incompetent.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Wed, Feb 7, 2018, 11:36am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: The War Without, The War Within

Ed no doubt the Buddha's message was simple as is most great moral messages. But while a great message may be understandable to a child, that should not be confused with a message being delivered in a childish manner, which I think what was meant by the Grade 3 example.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 11:47am (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Space Seed

Regarding McGivers, I don't think the flaw here was in the concept so much as the execution. The McGivers plot had her falling for Khan and apparently willing to commit treason within the space of about 90 seconds of screen time. This was woefully inadequate foundation for her betrayal, perhaps necessary due to the confines of the single episode format, but nevertheless inadequate.

That said I didn't find the McGivers character sexist in the slightest - the desire to submit to and be controlled by powerful men isn't some fantasy of the 1960s sexism. It is absolutely real, something that we saw with the Manson family in the late 60s and throughout history with charismatic cult leaders like David Koresh. That McGivers was an educated career woman didn't make her immune to this, just as it didn't for many of the followers of these charismatic monsters. Indeed, her refinement probably made her more vulnerable to his charisma, not less. Anyone from the outside is incredulous that a smart woman could be taken in so easily and say it could never happen to us - just as we do whenever it happens in real life!

So I'll agree that the execution was lacking, but to dismiss the concept offhand or to just blow it off as "sexist" is to make essentially the same mistake McGivers (and Kirk for that matter) made.

And for the record, even as a straight male, all I can say is DAMN - I think I might have fallen for Khan. Montalbalm is positively mesmerizing. The actor just hit it out of the park in this role.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Sat, Jan 27, 2018, 10:46am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Vaulting Ambition

Maybe Section 31 was founded in the PU by MU refugees.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Fri, Jan 26, 2018, 2:10pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Vaulting Ambition

In Caretaker, Janeway flat out chose to help the Ocampa at the expense of the Kazon. She allied herself with one group to thwart another and radically impacted the balance of power in the region by blowing up the Caretaker array to keep it out of Kazon hands. Unlike, say, Who Watches the Watchers, this wasn't some attempt to correct an interference by a Federation crew, but was just blatantly taking sides and interfering in local politics.

The PD applied to the Ocampa and the Kazon. Note the PD rule precluding contact with pre warp species should not be confused with the broader principal of non interference. As Peter mentioned, we saw this at play in Redemption, when Picard refused to aid Gowron and take sides in a Klingon civil war. He was prepared to help expose Romulan duplicity but actually fighting in the conflict (as Voyager does in Caretaker) is out of the question.

But then in an episode a little later, Janeway refuses to make a side deal with rogue elements of a society to give them access to Voyager's artistic database in exchange for technology that will get Voyager home. Her principals are so important that she throws away a potential chance to get home because she doesn't want to do business with shady art / literature dealers?! LOL.

As for Scorpion, the entire justification for helping the Borg was BS and Chacotay (and later that alien Arcturas) calls her out on it straight up. Other than one stray telepathic transmission to Kes she had 0 information about 8472 and their goals. Indeed we find out later that the Borg started the war and then later in the series that they are pretty reasonable and not the inplacable fanatics Kes made them out to be. This is precisely why the PD exists - to prevent Starfleet Captains from meddling in things they don't understand!

Chacotay nailed it in one of his best moments in the series during his scorpion speech. He pretty much tells Janeway that her motives are self serving and that she is not really helping the borg to protect the galaxy but because she's too much of a coward to own up to the consequences of her past decisions.

There are other examples, but basically Janeway's chatacterization is bonkers. She goes from straight laced by the book in one episode to attempted murder of a starfleet officer in the next (Equinox).
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Jan 25, 2018, 4:17pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Vaulting Ambition

"The way I see it Janeway had a lot of compassion and was happy to break the PD to help others if she could and thought it appropriate. Have you got an example of "she'll completely ignore a route home because it violates the Prime Directive" as I can't think where this impression came from"

In the very first episode she violates the PD by helping the Ocampa, stranding Voyager in the DQ. Then in that episode with the Trajector she sacrifices a possible route home to avoid violating the PD (or at least Federation law!). Then in Scorpion she is back to pissing on the PD for the chance to get home (by taking sides in an interstellar war!!)

There are probably other examples. She is just all over the place.

But that isn't Mulgrew's fault any more than Burnham's ridiculous mutiny or murder of the Klingon leader in BOBS was Green's fault. But bottom line Mulgrew imbued Janeway with energy and spirit. Green is just empty and soooo boring.
Next ►Page 1 of 14
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2018 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.