Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:

Total Found: 245 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 10
Set Bookmark
Steve o
Sun, Jan 14, 2018, 7:54pm (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S2: Mirror, Mirror

I'm going through TOS on Netflix in order. Before this episode, my previous favourite was Balance of Terror, but this one supersedes it I think. Amazing episode. The only things I thought weren't great about it was the kind of untidy ending and the throw-away romance (which, in it's defence, did have a little bit of significance to the plot.)

Sulu was so good as a bad guy. A refreshing change for him as I sometimes think that his usual character is often a little too meek. (Although, not, I should say, in balance of terror. He was great in that also.) The cinematography was great. Subtly darker and broody, and it made Sulu look really menacing in the sick bay scene. Great stuff!

Out of all the characters from the 'real' universe in this episode, the one that impressed me the most was Uhura. It was awesome that here, all the mirror characters were bad-ass, but the real Uhura was totally bad-ass and I loved that. A huge step forward for her character. Much better than the "Captain, I'm frightened." Uhura I've seen in past episodes. (Although, there was a momentary glimpse of that, I gotta say.)

But the character that the whole show balanced on was Spock. Wonderful and believable in his cold, quietly calculating but fantastically deadly alter-ego. That beard! Devilish! Brilliant and clever character writing, even if, perhaps some of the plot devices were a bit ham-fisted.

It was great to see the episode that started the mirror universe idea. I enjoyed some of the mirror journeys that we were treated to in DS9 and the idea was used, differently, but to good effect in TNG, but for me, this one tops the lot.

Amazing.
Set Bookmark
Steve
Wed, Jan 3, 2018, 6:08pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S3: The Survivors

I as well think this is one of the better episodes in the series. One of the things I like about the series is that they don't make boring omnipotent beings. They're all pretty nuanced. Q is basically what you imagine how a man would act if you turned him into a god (pompous above everything else) while Kevin is entirely different, if not even on the opposite side of the spectrum. He just wants to live life, doesn't really want to be what he is, and he sheds it as much as he can to life his life out as a human man to be with the one he loves.

I think people are shortsighted when they question how someone could simply kill an entire race rather than do any number of other things in response to the only being they ever loved being killed (something they could've easily prevent if not for their own personal code they lived by). Imagine any time you ever yelled at anyone who did something really bad.

This guy is a god - for all we know, killing that entire race might have been the godly equivalent of a scream of rage in response to them killing his loved one. Especially since he's able to do it with a single thought. Imagine all the times you wished someone dead? He simply couldn't control himself enough in the wake of what happened to have that one thought, that unfortunately for him, unlike an actual human, he can't take back.

I think Picard's lines at the end are taken exactly with that in mind. To steal another line from something completely different, Primal Fear, when this "soulless" defense attorney tries to explain why he does what he does, he says "I believe in the notion, that people are innocent until proven guilty. I believe in that notion because I choose to believe in the basic goodness of people. I choose to believe that not all crimes are committed by bad people. And I try to understand that some very, very good people do some very bad things." This is the same kind of mindset Picard is displaying at the end, and as others have said, Picard probably understands as well that a god punishing himself with endless grief and regret is more than what humans could do to him anyways.

The mystery component of the episode was pretty solid too. Like someone else said, Picard shows himself a worthy captain as he doesn't just take the hand he's dealt. A ship that keeps up with the Enterprise at ridiculous speeds and seems impossible to defeat suddenly letting off, later being easy to defeat - he wasn't happy with the simple conclusion of the safety of the enterprise but wants to get to the bottom of what's really going on. That's always been Picard at his best in this series and part of why the finale was so incredible.

I agree that the Troi part was maybe unnecessary and a bit much, though I think the music box was an interesting choice, sort of like a "kind" way to keep someone off of their trail while inadvertently torturing them in the process. Who knows - if not for the seriousness of that, Picard may not have been quite as determined to figure out what was going on.

There are certainly some better episodes, but I always find this one very memorable and I'd agree with 4 stars too on it. If choosing a selection of the greatest episodes - let's say 20 across the series, I'd include this.
Set Bookmark
Steve
Wed, Nov 8, 2017, 9:13am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

@BZ
You're right, it's certainly not relevant to this specific episode – more a general comment on the navel-gazing quality of Discovery's universe building.

It's stated in an earlier episode that only the humans among the Discovery's crew are capable of horizontal gene transfer to access the mycelium network, on the grounds that they share a common ancestor with mushrooms and therefore share a considerable quantity of their genetic makeup. The fact that the humans and the mushrooms are required to share a common ancestor for plot reasons rules out the idea that the mushrooms came to Earth from off-planet. (Particularly given that we're shown the origins of life on Earth in the final episode of TNG – no mushroom networks to be seen.)

I suspect that trying to make sense of it all is a waste of time, because the writers don't appear to have made any effort to make these things internally consistent. Discovery uses its science for effect and gimmicks, rather than attempting to make it coherent on any structural level. When you put that expectation to one side, it's a lot more enjoyable to watch – but as a fan of old Trek, which at least tried to make these things add up, it grates.
Set Bookmark
Steve
Wed, Nov 8, 2017, 5:54am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Re. Evan's comment that 'Discovery's crew is 100% American', adding to the 'insularity and claustrophobia of the show' – I'd take this further by saying that the show's whole universe is far too Earth-centric. The tardigrade was apparently a mutation of a creature from Earth (at first I thought the comparison to the tardigrade was only superficial, but as the series has gone on it seems that the creature is LITERALLY related to Earth tardigrades somehow). The mycelium network relies on mushrooms from Earth, and the only crew members capable of the DNA transfer required to operate the spore drive are the humans from Earth (as they share genetic material with the mushrooms).

The idea that a universe-defining concept like the mycelium network should have such strong ties to Earth makes the entire show feel somewhat naval-gazing and – again – claustrophobic. And it denies the series some of that sense of outward-looking wonder that made Trek feel so inclusive and open. While I'm not a huge fan of Christopher Nolan, it feels like a line from Interstellar sums how the show's writing differs from earlier series: "We used to look up in the sky and wonder at our place in the stars. Now we just look down and worry about our place in the dirt."
Set Bookmark
Steve
Wed, Nov 8, 2017, 5:44am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

As a lot of people have said, the last couple of episodes have redeemed Discovery somewhat after a nervy start. But a recurring concern is that Starfleet seems to be run in a way that doesn't seem sustainable. There's no respect for chain of command; insubordination is barely punished; mutineers and strangers are given influential positions on the bridge; commanding officers are sent into clearly dangerous situations with woefully inadequate security. The plot is being driven forward by events that seem illogical to the point of breaking immersion – ironic, for a show in which logic is praised so highly - and the overall result is that the universe feels insubstantial and, frankly, a little cheap (again, ironic for a show that costs so much).
Set Bookmark
Steve
Mon, Nov 6, 2017, 7:42pm (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Balance of Terror

Having seen this episode for the first time today, my jaw dropped when I saw Sarek as a Romulan commander! I wonder if people were similarly shocked and reminded of this episode when seeing the actual Sarek character for the first time.

Great episode. My favorite so far. There's so many interesting facets.
Spock and Sulu are superlative in this one.

I enjoyed the Romulan commander's ordeal. Watching him be outmanoevered yet still show his respect for his adversary was great. I do regret the writer's decision to kill the character though. I get the sentiment behind the choice, but there was the potential for a great rivalry here in future episodes, had they given the character a name and a means of escape.
Set Bookmark
Steven
Sat, Nov 4, 2017, 5:12pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad

@Ubik

I have a hunch that the basis for our disagreement is that we use the terms "vision, coherent narrative or style" somewhat differently. Although I tried to be explicit, these terms are still not self-explanatory and need to be put into context and into a larger artistic/cinematic theory. I won't do that right now because it would be a bit exhausting to dig so deep, but I believe this is where our misunderstanding lies.

So okay, I retract my arguments and criticisms for now, because I can't properly explain them.
Set Bookmark
Steven
Sat, Nov 4, 2017, 4:48pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad

@Ubik

I see where you're coming from in your reaction to my post. But you ignored what was meant as the keywords of my text - "vision, coherent narrative or style".

My arguments are not, as you say, logical loops (strawman arguments), but they are based on my observation that Discovery doesn't have its own cohesive style but feels like an awkward copy and paste job - at least to me.

I am fully aware that you don't have to share that opinion, and that you might interpret what you see as a good form of entertainment - maybe even having its own distinctive feel - instead of seeing it as something that is lacking. As to "The Force Awakens", it was acceptable entertainment for two hours, but personally, I don't mind whether this movie exists or not. It felt empty to me and I will probably not watch it again. Literally like a copy that makes you wonder: Why not watch the original instead? That's just my feeling towards it.
Set Bookmark
Steven
Fri, Nov 3, 2017, 10:43pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad

To give us conflicting characters may actually be one thing that Discovery got right; they certainly did a better job than on ENT, where everybody was too content and nice to each other. The DIS characters have potential for future conflicts, especially between military and science officers. Kind of "New Battlestar Galactica meets Star Trek".

Unfortunately, the characters still don't intrigue me, so I'm not particularly looking forward to seeing future conflicts between them and I'd rather focus on the exploration and science fiction aspects. But yeah, the character work hasn't been a complete miss; what I don't like though is how inconsistent the characters still are and where their moral compass is, AND how similar they are to 21st century people.
Set Bookmark
Steven
Fri, Nov 3, 2017, 10:12pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad

Oh my god, I just read what Trent wrote two days ago. Here's a quote:

>> MisterWooster said: "What we have in DISCO is a Trek that doesn't adhere to
>> the "8ish or so Senior Officers Going on Adventures" template, and the reason
>> behind that is: That Template No Longer Works In 2017TM.

> The template works fine. As someone who reads mountains of new science
> fiction novels a year, I can assure you that deep, unique, philosophically,
> scientifically and politically interesting scifi "adventure" and "first contact" tales
> are everywhere (everyone go read Peter Watts' "Blindsight" and Octavia Butler's
> "Lilith's Brood"). The problem is, television writers live in bubbles and are
> primarily influenced by film and TV, and not literature, and certainly not science
> fiction literature. So they have no tales to tell."

Now THAT is a plausible explanation to me. I have heard a couple of good explanations now for why Voyager, or Enterprise, failed to meet the expectations. None of them are suggesting that the new course that Discovery takes is the necessary cure to an outdated formula. True, Star Trek was (and is) in crisis, but I believe that the course that Discovery has taken hasn't been of much help in solving this crisis; if anything, it has obscured the issue.

Quick summary of some convincing points I've heard:

- "TV writers live in a bubble and don't take inspiration from good literature any more" is a very good explanation. The remix of TV shows that Discovery writers pull off in such a fancy way is not a solution.

- Another very good point was that TNG had a coherent vision from the start, it wanted to be different from contemporay TV and do its own thing; in that regard, it followed in the footsteps of TOS. Where's the vision/boldness in Discovery? And no, it's not bold to do a mixer of existing TV shows. (As I said previously, let's wait till the end of season 1 to do a judgment on what "vision" or narrative the new show has. All I can say is that currently I'm not seeing it.)

- TNG also had a superb production team. The reason why Voyager wasn't as great as TNG or DS9 has largely to do with conflicting ideas of what the series was supposed to be or where it wanted to go. In the first two seasons, there were a couple of good concepts and conflicts between the characters that the writers should have expanded upon. At the core of TOS, there are three characters with conflicting attitudes and ideas (Kirk, Spock, Bones); something similar would've been needed for Voyager. Chakotay and his Maquis crew were too easily implemented into Voyager's crew after season 2 and there was little internal conflict left among the crew. I could go on with this; but I think my point is clear that the "8ish main officers going on adventures" template as such is not the problem.

Let's wait and see.
Set Bookmark
Steven
Fri, Nov 3, 2017, 3:10pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad

"I just want to add one thing: Star Trek Discovery feels to me like the first Trek series since DS9 that's genuinely committed to trying something new. Voyager and Enterprise tried to be fresh in their initial concepts, and had their moments, but they were largely rehashes of stuff we'd seen before. But a lot of Trek fans now seem to fault Discovery for departing from prior shows too much to do its own thing. My response? If all you want from Star Trek is familiarity and repetition, there are HUNDREDS of old episodes on Netflixa and in TV reruns for you to enjoy."

That's the two camps that we have right now:

1. One camp says: DIS is boring for being too much like any other contemporary TV show. It has lost Star Trek's originality and no guts any more.

2. The other says: I was bored by VOY and ENT, finally we got a new series that has the guts to refresh the Trek formula.

Both are right to *some* lesser degree. The question is which one you think is the more relevant description of what's going. To me, it's clearly number (1) and there are lots of examples to strengthen that argument (which have been brought up during the discussion).

I think the people who defend position number (2) need to explain to us what the new "vision", the new coherent narrative or style is supposed to be. Because if they can't do that, then we have a strong indication that the new series is without artistic direction and a product of mere "copy and paste". At this point, I don't have the evidence to completely rule out that the writers KNOW what they're doing, so I don't want to lean too much out of the window. But I can say that I haven't recognized a coherent narrative *so far*.

The right time to judge will probably be the end of season 1.
Set Bookmark
Steven
Thu, Nov 2, 2017, 4:38pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad

The series fatigue argument is also unconvincing to me. In "The Force Awakens", the writers took the safe route of doing a - rather uncreative - copy and paste job and sticking too close to the original. But surely, you can't argue that the Star Wars universe had "series fatigue" already and that it would have been impossible to create a new, original movie, that set itself better apart from the original ones.

That is what I also see happening on Discovery. DIS uses the established methods from contemporary shows (2017) plus the established methods from the old Trek shows, mixes them somehow and then the Media hypes the result as a creative new approach on Trek.

I will only subscribe to that positive interpretation when I've discovered a coherent, convincing artistic and narrative direction of the new show. So far, I haven't, and Peter G is right in saying that TNG was much bolder - in setting itself apart from everything else - than Discovery is with its rehashing of things that you've already seen in 10 other TV series, just better (Discovery being a shallow copy of the originals). Who wants to see a worse version of Battlestar Galactica or House of Cards?

It's still possible for DIS to get its act straight, so this is all that I want to comment on this atm.
Set Bookmark
Steven
Wed, Nov 1, 2017, 6:10pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad

"Steven I find it very disrespectful that you come here again and again writing basically how stupid anybody is who liked this episode or the show overall!"

Well it recently came up as a point in the discussion that some people see the show as anti-science or anti-intellectual, so I posted my view on it. That was a constructive thing to do, as in to clarify my position.

Having done that, I see no point in doing it again, and I'll move on. So don't worry, I am not coming here particularly to insult people. I have every right to write that I don't feel taken seriously by the authors because they don't make the effort to polish their scripts and THEY treat the audience as dummies.

If your conclusion from that is that I wanted to insult the audience and insinuate that they are stupid, well it wasn't meant like this. It's hard to speculate on the general audience, maybe they're just coming from a different angle and for some reason they're not bothered by the same things that I am, maybe the do spot the same mistakes but don't mind them, or they don't spot them... I don't know. I never directly insulted the audience, and if that is what you read between the lines from my posts, well that isn't what I said.
Set Bookmark
Steven
Wed, Nov 1, 2017, 4:29pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad

"That's sort of the vibe I get off Michael, basically that 'science' for the show boils down to that she's smarter than everyone else and is always right. TNG did quite a lot of science-puzzle shows, and in each one the characters are mostly wrong for the entirety of the episode until someone - or a group - comes around to the solution, which is typically thematic to the episode. In DISCO there isn't any 'getting it wrong until they get it right', Michael is just right. That's not science, it's the Trek equivalent of superpowers."

Thank you for putting it in such good words, that is just the point I am trying to make whenever I say the show is anti-science or anti-intellectual. It's true that they are not directly saying that science is stupid or intellectuals are dorks, and if Lorca says this, it should be treated as a single voice and I wouldn't see it as the voice of the entire series.

This is fine and well. But there is an *indirect* disrespect for science and intellectuals so far on the show, because they give almost no screen time to solving scientific or intellectual puzzles. Nobody has to figure anything out, which is what most Star Trek episodes used to be constructed around. Michael gets the solution instantly right, with no explanation given how she reached her conclusion, and boom, there is your Hail Mary. I don't take the writers' claim that they love science at face value, because they need to show it through their scripts to convince me.

On the "intellectual" topic, for some reason I feel a bit intellectually insulted in every episode so far, because there are always a couple of mind-bogglingly stupid logic flaws, that make the viewing experience much less pleasant than it could be. It's like they don't take the audience and their intellect seriously and don't make the effort to polish their scripts. Which is something that was *different* on Star Trek before. Even Voyager episodes, which often had silly stories, were a bit more consistent in themselves and at least tried to be clever within their own logic, and tried not to give us logical flaws every 5 minutes.

The first Trek movie whose watching experience was ruined for me because they brought huge logical flaws every few minutes (you had just recovered from one, and then came the next) was "Nemesis". That is what I call the Nemesis experience. For some reason, Discovery gives me a very similar vibe. Everything revolves around the visuals and action, while nobody stops for even a moment to think about the contrivances that are called a plot.
Set Bookmark
Steven
Wed, Nov 1, 2017, 4:00pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad

"Peter G, I totally understand your reading of this episode but I don’t think it was necessarily meant to be read like that."

You assume that Peter G was trying to sum up and judge the episode in his text, which he failed to do properly. I think that's where you're wrong in the first place.

It's evident to me that Peter G never meant to write a representative review of the episode, the likes that Jammer writes. He instead focused on very particular impressions that lead to certain conclusions about the series as a whole, which he elaborated on. That was very picky, and some people here mistook it as a "negative review for this one episode", which it wasn't.
Set Bookmark
Steven
Wed, Nov 1, 2017, 1:24am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad

Skeech, that explanation is about as convincing as the reason why Warp 10 was never used again on Voygager: Simply because it mutates human DNA. It wasn't a convincing explanation back then, and it's no more convincing now. There's a reason why "Threshold" is considered one of the worst Trek episodes of all time.

During wartime, everything is different anyway. They would've used the spore drive during the Dominion War endlessly, because even if it kills the pilot, there are always some people willing to sacrifice themselves like that if it brings their side a good tactical advantage. (For example, if it allows the ship to escape; better to just kill one person, than allow the whole ship to be destroyed.)

Besides, Janeway would've used it right after the Voyager pilot episode, to sacrifice herself, but bring the Crew home.
Set Bookmark
Steven
Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 10:58pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad

"We just had a 3 episode arc about a new life form that was explored in detail, it feels disingenuous to act like the show doesn't explore new life just because it didn't in this episode."

I must have been watching the show in a mirror universe, because to me the tardigrade is the best example of how this show doesn't (!) take alien lifeforms seriously. I roughly remember it like this:

"We've hooked it up to a neural scanner! Here's the brain patterns!"
[10 minutes later]
"We need results fast. Let's put it to sleep, then I lower the forcefield and cut off its fingernail, as a sample to weaponize."
"Okay."
[Female officer does as she says, gets attacked and dies]

Here's what a real scientific thinker would have inserted:

"Wait a moment; it killed a lot of Klingons and you just want to approach it? Shouldn't we try to anticipate its behavior (most likely violent)? I'm sure that in 10 minutes, in a streak of brilliance, I will recognize that it is only "defending itself", but by that time you will be already dead. Also, why did we hook it up to a brain scanner if we don't even take a look at the monitor to see whether it has been sedated? [Yes, they actually didn't even look at the brain scan monitor.] Oh, and you want to bring a phaser, which has been PROVEN to ineffective. That is surely a good measure to defend yourself."

You call the original version "explored in detail"?

Some time later, while the tardigrade is looking like it's suffering, Michael suddenly comes to the conclusion: "It's self-aware!" What her conclusion is based on, we are never told. Normally, at this point, in any Trek episode, people would try to communicate with the lifeform to prove the theory that it's self-aware through whatever he's saying. But no, we never got any communication established.

And that is pretty much all that we ever learned about the tardigrade. Jumps in captivity are for some reason stressful, while jumps in freedom are not, so the creature is released.

Your "3-episode-exploration" is much less than any single episode of any other other Trek show, if it puts the exploration of a new life form in its center, tells us about that lifeform.

"I also have trouble buying the anti-intellectual, anti-science mindset when the majority of the characters are scientists and the show dotes over them."

You're right in that regard. But the writers show their disrespect for science by putting really bad science in the show.
Set Bookmark
Steven
Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 4:48pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad

Good points, Peter G.

"And this, I think, reflects the moral compass of the production team. I honestly feel that they understand Trek about as well as JJ Abrams does Star Wars. They know the gadgets, they know the references, but the heart of it entirely eludes them. Worse - they appear to hold values that are utterly antagonistic to Trek. And let's not mince words about showing Mudd torturing people: these scenes were supposed to be fun to watch. Is it proper to make a comedic spectacle over the Captain being spaced?"

When someone is shown to us as a sadist, that used to have a narrative justification. But on DIS, pretty much every "bad guy" is exaggerated like this. The Klingons are torturers, assumedly in a pathological way, because keeping Mudd and Ash in the prison for months seems tactically pointless, when they could just be executed. Obviously, the Klingons like to gloat and humiliate their enemies. Captain Lorca also likes his collection of pain-inflicting weapons, just don't ask me WHY. What's the narrative point? It's almost like these character cards were written by 11-year olds, who try to make them "as badass as possible", with no regard for the moral implications.

New Mudd is the kind of character that you usually meet in video games these days. In pretty much every ego shooter, there are these sadistic characters whose cruelty we watch as a form of entertainment. The writers of the show use this common device simply because it's an established and cheap form of entertainment.

But yeah, the show is missing a soul. There's nothing behind it.

"... although I was still sad not to hear any more about what a 4-D life form is or how the Federation knows of their existence. But who am I kidding, I'm not going to get that kind of thing on this show."

I think that's just another example of how anti-intellectual this show is. I doubt that they have any concept behind what a 4-D lifeform is supposed to be. No intelligent person would include "four-dimensional beings" into an episode script, because that is actually what WE are: We move through three dimmensions, plus time, so by definition we all are four-dimensional beings.
Set Bookmark
Steve
Mon, Oct 30, 2017, 4:41pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad

The CBS AA stream continued to be horrible tonight. I was watching on a PS4 with solid bandwidth and no problems on Netflix and I lost a whole chunk of dialogue between Burnham and Stamets. Also rewinding on the All Access app is very cumbersome. All Access is clearly not ready for the number of streamers tuning in on Sunday evenings and they need to fix this ASAP.

This week felt the most like a Star Trek episode but I actually liked it the least of the run so far. Mudd attempted treason against the Federation and murdered dozens of crew members through the time loop and has access to advanced technology and yet he’s handed over to his wife in a goofy resolution straight out of TOS. This really didn’t work for me. Also, do Kirk and Spock not have these records of Mudd’s actions from ten years before?

Still, the show is tremendously fun and has tons of energy so I’m still really excited about it. Just fix All Access!
Set Bookmark
Steve
Mon, Oct 30, 2017, 2:19pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Lethe

I know Star Trek very well, and I don't see where they've broken canon. I mean, I have a few questions. Like are those holodecks as lifelike as TNG holodecks? If so, that would be a canon violation, but it's not clear that's the case. And then there's the Klingons. This just confuses me. They're always changing the way alien races look, especially the Klingons. So I don't know why someone would have a problem with that. I think the most clear canon violation so far is the music they were listening to at that party in the time loop episode. But by and large, I don't see where canon has been violated.
Set Bookmark
Steve
Mon, Oct 30, 2017, 2:11pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad

As someone who's been somewhat defending the show, I didn't think this episode was all that great. It was disappointing to see Stamets cave so easily. And as much people criticize the spore drive, actually there's nothing on this show as ridiculous as a rave party on a starship.

People liked this episode because it felt more like Star Trek, and it did. But were still waiting for an episode that feels like Star Trek and has strong storyline.
Set Bookmark
Steve
Mon, Oct 30, 2017, 1:16pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad

Michael wanted to bring Ash Tyler back to life. That's wh6 she ate the dark matter ball. Throwing it at Mudd might have stopped him, but Ash would still be dead. She needed him to restart the time loop.
Set Bookmark
Steve
Mon, Oct 30, 2017, 12:07pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Lethe

I'm halfway between Jason and the canon police. I think the writers should know and respect the canon but not feel constrained by it. Originally, the Borg didn't assimilate people and were only interested in technology. But then the writers broke canon and rewrote the Borg. And I for one, like the new Borg. If a writer can improve upon what came before, he should be free to do so.

As for this plausible science debate, I don't understand what the problem with the spore drive is. Per my understanding, the spore drive uses quantum entanglement to make leaps. Now it's impossible in the real world for many reasons. But quantum entanglement is real science. It's as real as wormholes. So I don't understand why everyone's going on about how implausible it is. It's about the same level of plausible as warp drive.
Set Bookmark
Steven
Mon, Oct 30, 2017, 10:54am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad

"Why did Michael eat the death ball, instead of throwing it at Mudd?"

That's the point that I already tried to make: Even if we assume that phasers got remotely deactivated, there are other ways to stop an intruder - physical assault, throwing one of Lorca's death weapons, etc.

"If this is not a reboot, why is this Mudd so much more sociopathic than old Mudd?"

I was definitely wondering that, too. But it's probably the same as with the Klingons: Make him look brutal, because that's considered "edgy" on television today.
Set Bookmark
Steven
Mon, Oct 30, 2017, 10:38am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad

Basically a time-loop episode like this one should be the easiest to get right, it is so conveniently self-contained (pun intended). That the writers still manage to make so many mistakes is kind of impressive. Not in a good way!
Next ►Page 1 of 10
▲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.