Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:

Total Found: 8 (Showing 1-8)

Page 1 of 1
Set Bookmark
Mike Meares
Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 4:22pm (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: The City on the Edge of Forever

@ tony

I guess we just have a difference of opinion on this issue tony. Because I think it is very clear from the episode, "The City On The Edge Of Forever," that the Guardian WOULD NOT return Kirk, Spock ( and McCoy )UNTIL they prevented McCoy from changing all of history the way he did. Before McCoy arrived in the past, Edith died in a car accident. So Kirk HAD to make sure that McCoy did not prevent that from happening.

Tony you are absolutely correct in that in the episode this fact is not stated "word for word" by any indivial.

However, I must point out that when Captain Kirk asked the Guardian if he and Spock were successful in stopping McCoy from changing history what would happen? The Guardian clearly says, "Then you will be returned. It will be as though none of you had gone."

Also, the portal for the Guardian is in the PRESENT time. There is no portal in earth's past. So now the question becomes how could Edith, or anyone in the past for that matter, travel to the future without a portal? I don't think it is possible.

If I am bending over backwards to prove that the 'City' story DOES make sense to me, then all I can say is forgive me for living. I think it is one of the finest Si-Fi Stories ever written.

I am not familiar with the Voyager series, so I can't speak on that matter.
Set Bookmark
Mike Meares
Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 12:49pm (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S2: The Deadly Years

Three stars for Wplf in the Fold, but only two stars for The Deadly Years? If WIYF is 3 stars then TDY is 3 and a half!

The Deadly Years still is a great story. I agree with some of Jammer's criticisms, but not the thurst of it. The story was about Kirk giving up command because of his age and ablility. And it was a good one.

Jammer even says why didn't Spock just take command instead of the competency hearing? In fact, Commodore Stocker ask Spock to do just that and Spock refuses! Why? As Spock says, " I remind you, sir, that I too have contracted the same affliction? " Spock could not take over for Kirk when he was afflicted as the Captain. This wasn't logical for Spock to take command under those conditions. The competency hearing was neccessary.

Just as our older Americans refuse and fight to give up their driving liciense because of their failing health, so Kirk fought to keep control of his command. I thought it was a very strong statement.

Were there weaknesses to the story? Sure! Another love interest for Kirk, which I felt was totally unneccessary for the story. The pain Kirk felt when he thought Spock betray him would have been stronger without the ex-girlfriend thrown in.

But all in all a very good episode.
Set Bookmark
Mike Meares
Sat, Jul 9, 2011, 9:59pm (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S2: Wolf in the Fold

Although, I generally believe Jammer's reviews of the second season are good ones, I take exception with the Wolf in the Fold rating of three stars.

I think it is a very weak episode and contains many weaknesses.

The main problem with the story is the way women are portrayed. The role of women in Star Trek was always a little weak, but in Wolf in the Wolf it is out and out chauvinism.

I always had a problem with Star Trek stories that tried to say Scotty was a womanizer, which I feel was stupid. I just never beleived that Scotty would have behaved like that.

And for Captain Kirk to say that the best way to "heal" a man under his command was to set him up with the nearest woman was beyond belief. And for Dr. McCoy to go along with the plan only compounded the problem.

And then to make matters worse Mr. Spock jumped on the male chauvinist band wagon when he explained about the entity that was killing women, "And I suspect it preys on women because women are more easily and more deeply terrified, generating more sheer horror than the male of the species." This was the most rankest form of male chauvinism and something I do not beleive Mr. Spock would have ever said. It isn't logical.

Near the end of the story instead of taking control of Captain Kirk or Mr. Spock, which would have been the logically thing to do, the entity choose the weakest people to inhabit. Nothing about this story made sesne.

Wolf in the Fold was actually a sheep in wolf's clothing.

Set Bookmark
Mike Meares
Fri, Jul 8, 2011, 8:52pm (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: The City on the Edge of Forever

I would agree with most of the reviews by Jammer on the first season of Star Trek TOS.

However, I totally agree with Jayson, Sci Fi Nerd and others about Balance of Terror. That was a great show that has held up well with time. And the criticism of the cheap set design of the Romulan ship and the helmets worn by the crew was really weak. Star Trek was running on a shoe string budget and I think it was very well done considering what they had to work with.

And I think too much has been made here of The City on the Edge of Forever. The Guardian even tells Kirk and Spock that when they repair what was changed by Doctor McCoy in the past then they will be returned to the future. And not before. Kirk could not bring Edith to the future. That was never a choice for Kirk. If Kirk wanted to save Edith and live in the past with her, then that would have been an option for him.

However, Flask’s criticism of Edith mentioning Clark Gable is right on. Even though Clark Gable did make a few early silent films in 1925. Gable was an extra in those films and not the big name star he later became. Much is made in the ST episode of Edith being surprised that McCoy and Kirk both had never heard of Clark Gable, the fact is in 1930 most of the general public had never heard of him either.

In addition, I would have given Miri three stars. That was always one of my favorite episodes of the first year. I agree it has flaws, but it still holds my interest even after all this time.

All in all the reviews are spot on and I have enjoyed reading them over and over again.
Set Bookmark
Mike Meares
Tue, Mar 8, 2011, 5:20pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek (2009)

Like the Jim Croce song, "You don't tug on Superman's cape. You don't spit into the wind. You don't pull the mask off that old Long Ranger. And you don't mess around with Jim (Kirk)."

Star Trek(2009) as with so many blockbusters of this kind, and the majority of the creative powers at work have been focused on the special effects. Spaceships twist and turn, avoiding debris and the “phaser” blasts of their enemies. One recalls an alarming number of objects exploding. The screen is constantly filled with action, often too much of it to take in. At times this is suspenseful or exciting, too often it is simply incomprehensible.

The new Star Trek devoted little time to the characters themselves, although it is ostensibly about their development and the challenge of their first mission. The individuals change and grow too rapidly, relationships are formed and grudges forgiven too quickly. Most of it is unconvincing.

I loved Jim Kirk. I loved him because of the person he WAS. AND he became that way because of his experience as a Star Fleet cadet and his interaction with other officers and his development over the years. Abrams changed all that with his different timeline. Jim Kirk never had a chance to become the man I admired and looked up to.

Reworking such familiar characters and events places a number of constraints on the filmmakers, although they are perhaps all too willing to abide by them as well. The tug-of-war between creating a new work and pleasing a built-in fan base takes its toll on the film. One almost groans as the catch phrases of the Star Trek series—“Live long and prosper,” “Damn it, man, I’m a doctor not...something else”—find their way into scenes.

The original Star Trek series has maintained a considerable following over the years. Some of the program’s qualities continue to appeal. Created in the aftermath of the civil rights movement in the US and broadcast during the period of growing opposition to the Vietnam War, the show envisioned a future in which race and national boundaries have been rendered meaningless. Space exploration and the search for new discoveries and insights into the workings of the universe also play a central role. In addition, some of the episodes possessed a comic touch and, despite all the silliness of William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley and the others, the crew exuded a certain charm and camaraderie.

However, while the original series created by Gene Roddenberry was capable of rising above its simple Western-in-space motif, the current film from director J.J. Abrams and producer Damon Lindelof, two of the names behind the popular television series Lost, fails to do so. Perhaps more than any other film in the series, the latest Star Trek reveals itself to be a typical action movie and far less a work of science fiction. There is not very much about the film that one is asked to think about. One simply watches it and goes home.

The overall aim of the work, to “finally” show viewers how Kirk and Spock met, how the bridge crew of the Enterprise was formed and what transpired on their first mission ultimately, strikes one as trivial. These are not, after all, real people and this is not real history. This is not a work of art that desperately needed to be made.

As J. Jonah Jameson puts it in Spider-Man, the Star Trek Movie is, "Crap, Crap, Mega Crap!"

Set Bookmark
Mike Meares
Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 12:11am (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S3: Spock's Brain

Leanord Nimoy is quoted as saying about the The Third Season of Star Trek that it was "very weak in general, but it was especially not good for Spock." That was an understatement!

At the start of the Third Season after Gene Roddenberry left the show for all intents and purpose most of the writing staff had also leftthe show. Fred Freiberger took over as producer, with Arthur Singer replacing D.C. Fontana as script consultant. According to Fontana, Singer came to the set one day, and asked "By the way, what does that transporter thing do again?" And people wonder why the scripts were so poor?

Robert Justman, who desevered to be given the Producers job was promoted to co-producer, but left the series after "That Which Survives". Gregg Peters became the new associate producer. This was another reason the stories were weak.

A most important change was the leave of cinematographer Jerry Finnerman after "The Empath", and his replacement with his former camera operator, Al Francis, which affected the visual style of the series. The overall look and feel of the show changed dramatically and this was the reason.

Probably not a big deal to some people but it bothered me a lot was the look of the uniforms in the Third Season. The uniforms were no longer made of velour (which shrank every time it was cleaned), but of double-knit polyester.

I don't own the DVD for the Third Season and never will. To me it is not Star Trek but a weak subsitute. Star Trek will always live for me in the First Two Seasons. The people behind the camera and in front of the camera were the best people to ever work in TV.

When people say the Third Season was "pretty good" I am reminded of what Spock once said, "I refuse to stand here and be instulted."

Set Bookmark
Mike Meares
Sat, Jan 22, 2011, 10:32pm (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S2: The Omega Glory

I have to admit when I first watched The Omega Glory in 1968 I liked it. However, over the years of rewatching the first two years of The Orginal Series I have come to realize it is a very poor episode. To even think that another planet could develop into two cultures like the Americans and the Chinese is too far fetched. And to have Kirk side with the whites against the yellows smacks of racism. I can barely believe this was one of the orginal stories that was proposed for the second pilot. Gene should have left this story on the shelf.
Set Bookmark
Mike Meares
Sat, Jan 22, 2011, 9:56pm (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: The City on the Edge of Forever

I know I am three years late but I will take a stab at answering Jake's first question about "City on the Edge of Forever". Even if Kirk wanted to return to his time with Edith by his side, how was the Captain going to tell the Guardian this? It is clear from the story that the Guardian doesn't control who comes and goes from the protal, the Guardian only shows the images of the past. The more interesting questions are why did the Creators of the Guardian give the Guardian the ablility to transport people in the past? And did the Creators not think someone could transport to the moment the Guardian was built and stop the creation of the Guardian?
Page 1 of 1
▲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.