Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 85,902 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 3,437
Set Bookmark
MidshipmanNorris
Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 1:02pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: DS9 S6: Resurrection

Not much to say about this one. It has a good gimmick to make the viewer tune in (maybe I should say a "just ok" gimmick), but then they sit there and barely do anything with it. I can understand them having Bareil not tell Kira his vision (due to Kira telling him it's inappropriate to share them), but not showing it to us was the turning point in the episode where it seemed like the writers had lost any semblance of cohesion in the narrative.

This episode doesn't know what it's doing, and it meanders through 45 minutes of a plot that just sort of says "eh, whatever." Snore.
Set Bookmark
David Staum
Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 12:32pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: DS9 S2: Tribunal

Good episode, albeit with some flaws that others have pointed out.

But I have to say that Keiko and Miles have zero romantic chemistry. Watching them kiss in the runabout was so awkward it made me cringe.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 11:48am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TOS S1: Space Seed

@ Trish,

I can see that feminist critique, but even by the 1950's America had entered an age of become self-aware of it's own inherited tendencies, and was able to poke fun at them while recognizing that things were changing whether people liked it or not. I know that feminism still had some ways to go in the 60's, but you can take a show like The Honeymooners from the 50's as a good example of the realization that many men still wanted to act out the "I'm king of the castle" role while knowing on another level that the wife in the family was in fact not subservient to him. "Right in the kisser" and "You're going to the moon" were both jokes on the faux-nostalgia of when the husband was utterly dominant in every way. By the early 70's you have All in the Family continuing the portrayal of the dominant domestic man as being a spent force, utterly defeated by the new age of both female and youth empowerment. The man in this case who still acts like a savage ends up looking more like a fool than like a threat.

Now this is TV, and surely in real domestic life things were often still an unfortunate throwback to earlier times. But insofar as the public-facing social causes are often portrayed through popular media, I don't think by 1966 there was still a public perception that was accepted that the typical man-woman relationship is that the man is utterly dominant and the woman is his footstool. Sure, there were cultural tropes of playing at the man being dominant, but that's different from being actually dominant. To this day there are quasi-theatrical playings out of the man being the king of the house, but it's just playacting, not an actual adversarial situation (not most of the time, anyhow).

So I guess I disagree that people would have seen the Khan/McGivers relationship as essentially similar to typical American relationships of the mid-60's. I think the Khan image (the mighty conqueror) was a significant throwback even at that time, completely inverting the emerging mentality of the progressive movements in the 60's. Sure, you could no doubt find regressive communities and relationships out there (especially in rural areas, which are typically decades behind metropolitan cities), but I think the idea of a woman idealizing a dictator would have been nearly as alien to a 1966 American woman as it is to people today.

I know you were citing a possible objection, rather perhaps than making one yourself, but personally I don't see it. The thrall of serving a great man like a Julius Caesar seems to me to me a cultural divide of centuries, not decades.
Set Bookmark
Trish
Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 11:11am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TOS S1: Space Seed

@Peter G.
@Tony

The feminist critique would be that at the time it was written, the relationship between Khan and McGivers would not have come across as an example of any minority community founded in a specific sexual preference, but as a fairly "mainstream" male/female dynamic. Basically, it was seen as typical, even normative, for any woman to be the "submissive" in a relationship with a man. I think viewers are supposed to see Khan's dominance, even to the point of physical violence, and Marla's submission to it (asking to stay in his cabin after he has literally thrown her across a room, and wanting to go with him into exile after she rescued her captain from being tortured to death by him) as romantic, like Rhett Butler carrying Scarlett up the staircase and awaking the next morning with a smile on her face.

It is this presumption of a sadomasochistic element in typical relationships that makes this episode incredibly distasteful to me. (And let's face it, a 1960s TV show would not have portrayed it as some kind of love story with the shoe on the other foot, that is, with a man as the submissive under a physically dominant woman.)
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 10:59am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S6: Realm of Fear

"From that perspective, the transporter chief is a serial killer living in a society that has decided to have no problem with his crimes, as long as there keep being copies to pick up where his "victims" left off. That would make it very reasonable for Barclay to have been avoiding him."

Yeah, no kidding. Not sure if you're a PC gamer but there's a terrific game called Torment: Tides of Numenara which is a successor to what is generally considered to be the best RPG story, Planescape: Torment. Both games delve heavily into the topic of mortality and what makes you 'you', but Numenara in particular addresses in detail the question of the relationship between "you" (whatever that is), the body you inhabit vs a copy of that body, or a new body but with modifications; or your self being converted to data; or about whether there can be multiple 'you's' at once. Anyhow, I really like the game. It allows you to choose how to interpret the answers to these questions, and the story finale follows along the interpretation of your choice.

Ironically, Realm of Fear inadvertently undermines our previous understanding of the transporter system. It seems to me it was originally supposed to be a conversion of your body and mind into energy (i.e. destruction) and then reconstituting that body and mind elsewhere. But Realm of Fear portrays people in the 'matter stream' totally conscious and intact, as if their body as a whole is transported somewhere through a wormhole or something. Now of course this is total nonsense, and Braga is the last person to care about whether any of his stories conform to reality, but it actually undermines his script to suppose that the very thing that *should* terrify you about the transporter (your own death) is actually made untrue in this episode's logic. Poor Barclay.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 10:46am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TOS S1: Space Seed

@ Trish and Tony,

To be fair, BDSM is a physical acting out of what is otherwise a present factor in all human relationships - the power dynamic and animal dominance element. So in terms of how people inhabit or even prefer particular power dynamics, BDSM would be a subset of the ways in which to live that reality. While it may be interesting to imagine that a person who admires or even craves a strong person to dominate them might also prefer a sub role sexually, this does not necessarily follow. Not that it's wrong, but just that I'm not sure the one implies the other. As far as I understand it a person could be quite dominant in everyday life but nevertheless have sub fantasies for the bedroom (and vice versa).

For my part I think what the writers were after (or at least thought they were after) is that in a completely egalitarian society there is the risk of stigmatization in actually admiring or even being attracted to someone like a Julius Caesar. Within the confines of that society, there definitely still are totally badass dominant personalities, like Kirk himself for instance, but the form that dominance takes is extremely civilized and polite compared to the trope of the caveman walking with woman slung over his shoulder and taking her back to his cave. So to the extent that someone might be craving a dominant leadership figure in the 23rd century, they definitely have those already. But what they don't have is the version (i.e. what a Kirk might have been like 700 years prior) where there is no lip service to politeness and holding back the darker side. So I see the appeal for McGivers as being not so much finding someone who's dominant, but rather finding someone who is savage and merciless, yet highly intelligent (I think she needed the latter above all). And I'm not quite sure that this particular craving maps so well onto the BDSM community, since in theory that community is actually supposed to be governed by careful control elements and a feeling of safety and mutual giving. In theory, at least. But Khan offers none of those things, especially not safety. I suppose perhaps one could make a case that someone with BDSM predilections but, as Tony points out, didn't know how to live them in a healthy way, might *think* that Khan was a prize, whereas in fact he's a monster. But I believe Space Seed makes a case that he actually is a prize for her, not just seems like one because she's ignorant at first.
Set Bookmark
Trish
Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 10:42am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S6: Realm of Fear

@Peter G.

In fact, the philosophical issue of identity underlying the Star Trek transporter was the basis of one of the essay questions on the admission application for the University of Chicago when I was applying there decades ago. They didn't say the words "Star Trek" or "transporter," but described a device that takes a person apart and assembles a perfect copy of them somewhere else. Part A was if the device completely destroyed the original at the sending end so that only the version at the receiving end still existed, while Part B was if the next generation (so to speak) of the device could leave the original intact while still making the copy somewhere else. For both parts, the question to be answered was, which version of the person is really "you"?

My stance was that both are you, but that they are separate people, who share a past but separate futures. (In Part A, that future is death, or whatever may come after it.) In other words, that they have different "souls."

I ended up deciding to go to Notre Dame instead, but the University of Chicago apparently liked my answer; they did accept me!

From that perspective, the transporter chief is a serial killer living in a society that has decided to have no problem with his crimes, as long as there keep being copies to pick up where his "victims" left off. That would make it very reasonable for Barclay to have been avoiding him.
Set Bookmark
Trish
Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 10:26am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TOS S1: Space Seed

@Tony

While the BDSM angle is an interesting and actually rather logical take on this episode, I think it overestimates how accepted the idea of sadomasochism was at the time of the writer or indeed remains today. There is no BDSM in LGTBQ, and the refrain for tolerance and inclusion which begins with "between consenting adults" for many (perhaps most?) people still ends with "as long as nobody gets hurt." I suppose the BDSM crowd is as mystified by the second half of that refrain as the NAMBLA crowd is by the first.

I really don't think the writers THOUGHT they were portraying a BDSM relationship, even though, as you point out, they were.
Set Bookmark
Trish
Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 10:09am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: DS9 S6: You Are Cordially Invited

@Teelix,

I think you should consider the entire site to have one big SPOILER ALERT. Its primary audience (only Jammer can tell you if that's its original target audience, but it has become the main audience over the years) is people who have watched a lot of Trek, having seen many of these episodes multiple times, who want to talk about details that may have taken us several viewings to notice, and to make connections (sometimes contrasts) between different episodes and series that in some cases appeared years apart.

That kind of discussion is hard to have if everybody has to walk on eggshells for the sake of people who haven't yet experienced any of the plot twists or surprise endings. I think it's fair for us to want a space where we can do that.
Set Bookmark
11001001
Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 9:19am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: ENT S2: Horizon

This episode worked better for me than I thought it would. I found the basic premise of it to be solid, and I really appreciated the civilian "Boomer" perspective from a world-building standpoint. Honestly Montgomery showed that if he were given actual things do with his character, he could handle them *passably*.

However, there is a key problem with this episode's attempt to flesh out Mayweather's character, and give him actual things to do. Namely, its fundamental inconsistency with everything that has gone before, esp. with regard to Travis's competencies and capacities. In the past, Mayweather has been little more than a helmsman, with other skills only having been hinted at. Suddenly, in "Horizon", because it serves the plot, we see him as someone who has been a keen pupil and observer, learning from Reed and Tucker to the extent that he is able to implement their solutions and skillsets, even in a jury-rigged fashion, using the substandard hardware of a "J-class" freighter.

Don't get me wrong: I think this confidence and competence is welcome, and arguably realistic. Mayweather is a *bridge officer.* Even only a year out of spacedock, his training and experience should include a fair amount of knowledge of the inner workings of a starship, to the point that re-routing power to a few relays should be manageable for him.

So why do I bring it up as an inconsistency? Because it helps me to echo and reinforce Jammer's big criticism that neither the writers nor the actor have any idea what to build on top of the blank slate of this character. The inconsistency extends not only to his skillset, but also to his *personality*, highlighting a major logical flow in this episode. In the past, Travis has always come across as inexperienced, but here he is suddenly confident enough in his own abilities and his modifications that he decides to fight off the raiders himself. He does a handy job of it too, using his piloting skills to out maneuver the raiders, and then his juiced up weaponry to disable them.

But when you apply any amount of critical thinking, you realize that this approach to the problem is ridiculous, irresponsible, and totally inconsistent with what Travis (as portrayed so far) would do. The first thing they should have done was to send out a distress call to Enterprise. A Warp 5 ship could have arrived in minutes, and "Lt. Reed" could have disarmed that explosive beacon himself. Defending Earth civilians is presumably one of Starfleet's primary mandates, even in the 22nd century. Surveying gas giants can wait. So with Earth's most advanced starship within communication range, it's ridiculous that they did not simply call for help. If I were Travis, and it were *my* family and childhood friends on the line, I would not rely upon what I had learned from higher-ranking experts. I would just bring in the higher-ranking experts to save the day. Travis has never come across as overly cocky, self-assured, or having unearned confidence. He's come across as grounded (and bland). So it makes no absolutely no sense that he wouldn't bring in the cavalry. It's a major plot flaw that Horizon is depicted as being on it's own by default here, and the proximity to Enterprise is never even brought up.

This leads me nicely to the final absurdity of the episode -- the lack of any sort of debriefing and report. For whatever reason, Travis DOES take this on himself, and he succeeds! A single officer manages to defend an entire ship full of civilians. Again, that's a major reason why Starfleet is out there, so he should be getting a commendation for this! Instead, he chooses not to report it! He pretends to Archer that his family visit had been entirely routine, and that all was well. Leaving aside the fact that he's giving up the chance to get credit for a job well done, this decision is also short-sighted on his part, and arguably negligent. What if the raiders aren't discouraged, and they do continue to prey on Earth ships? He's putting his family at risk. If Earth is going to begin to set up systematic defence of its shipping lanes, then Starfleet needs intel on this raider ship, on its tech and its MO. Admiral Forrest needs to know in what sectors raiding activity is taking place. *Ensign* Mayweather should thus be obligated to give a full report on the encounter, and Enterprise should have requested a download of all the specs on the raider ship that were obtained from Horizon's scans.

Once again, the writers' decisions on this series fly in the face of any sort of logic and realism.
Set Bookmark
Tidd
Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 9:17am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S5: The Masterpiece Society

I'm not sure I ever saw this episode before? I kind of enjoyed it on a superficial level; well worn Star Trek themes of utopian society, genetic engineering, and the Prime Directive.

The most interesting part was the discussion of whether the PD applies to human societies. Picard seemed to think it did, but I'm not sure I agree: this colony was aware of the Federation, was not surprised by a visit from a starship, but did have great curiosity about scientific advances like transporters. Was their culture affected by this? Only in the sense that it provided a catalyst to an already underlying dissatisfaction in certain quarters; Hannah especially did not suddenly convert to 24thC tech - she must have already been ready to go places her own culture didn't provide for.

Is this why there's 213 comments? I'll set it out now - I don't intend to read any but the last few!

Anyway, I'd give it 2.5 stars.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 9:11am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S6: Chain of Command, Part II

Whoa, I just realized (probably for the first time since this first aired) that this is the last episode of TNG to air prior to the premiere showing of DS9's Emissary. I knew that The Wounded and Ensign Ro were setup eps for DS9, and that Chain of Command was adding to that, but it has completely escaped my attention over the years that this dark episode was the direct launching point for DS9. And who dares to say that DS9 was a dark series! TNG got the ball rolling on that. Not even DS9 showed outright torture scenes.
Set Bookmark
Tim C
Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 8:38am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

I doubt many of us would keep coming back here, Jammer, if you didn't go against the grain. The reviews themselves are some of the best analysis to be found on the Internet. Keep it up. Even though you are WRONG and this movie SUCKS 😂
Set Bookmark
Tidd
Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 8:37am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S5: Unification

I enjoyed Part II also, especially the Star Trek equivalent of the Binary Star Cantina, and the 'smuggler's woman' on keyboards. Good to see Nimoy (the 'dour Spock' as he's become!), and Picard and Data again as Romulans.

Just one flaw: why was Sela so determined to conquer Vulcan? It was not a major 'thing' as far as the average Romulan was concerned, so where was her motivation?

Anyway, 3.5 stars for me.
Set Bookmark
Tim C
Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 8:21am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: DS9 S6: You Are Cordially Invited

^^ Hello Teelix!

It's a comments section on the Internet for a television series that's nearly 30 years old. People aren't going to post spoiler warnings, not even when you ask as politely as you have here. Maybe you should just avoid reading the comments until you've finished the show? 😊
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 8:18am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S6: Realm of Fear

Starting this ep, I was momentarily confused that O'Brien was still the transporter chief. I had thought DS9 started at the same time as TNG S6, so that the two seasons were in synch. Turns out that's not right, DS9 seems instead to have started halfway through TNG S6. Huh.

One thing I'm realizing now about Barclay's transporter phobia is that it's probably the most rational fear I can imagine. Since I am more or less convinced that what the transporter does is destroy you and create a copy somewhere else, I'd be terrified of that too. No way I'd let anyone do that to me!
Set Bookmark
Tony
Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 7:54am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S4: Future Imperfect

There are multiple comments here that ask "Who stays on one ship for 15 years?" that are a riot.

Uhhhh... this crew does. As in that's exactly what they did!
Set Bookmark
Teelix
Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 7:51am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: DS9 S6: You Are Cordially Invited

Is it so hard to include a f'n SPOILER ALERT when mentioning MAJOR CHARACTER EVENTS in future episides?????

Not EVERYONE here has seen the whole f'n series!

This is why I was underwhelmed in the episodes about the wormhole minefield because, thanks to the assholes on this website (especially f'n Elliott), I knew the wormhole aliens were going to take out the massive Jem'Hadar fleet once in the wormhole. And that was a comment of his from one of the early seasons. Douchebag.

Y'all can burn in Hell!
Set Bookmark
Tony
Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 6:11am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TOS S1: Space Seed

I'm surprised with all these lengthy responses I haven't seen anyone state the obvious (maybe some folks are beating around the bush with the "people like this exist" comments):

Marla McGivers has a fetish!

She's a submissive whom the 23rd century has no place for and she knows it (I don't think this is actually realistic, I imagine Federation society would have found some healthy outlet for these people, but it's an interesting concept).

She falls in love with Khan so quickly because she's *already* been in love with him: he's what she's been waiting for her whole life. Khan is not just the man of her dreams: he's the only man for her in the entire galaxy, a mythical unicorn that by some miracle she's managed to stumble upon.

She's never actually been in this kind of relationship before and doesn't know how to do it in a healthy way, she has to learn it as she goes, and that includes how far exactly she's willing to go, and how far she isn't. It's pretty cool that Star Trek was exploring BDSM themes way back in the 60s.
Set Bookmark
Dom
Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 6:05am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

I agree with Jammer that the hate this movie receives is sometimes over the top. It's not great, but it's also not awful. It's serviceable, if not superb. It's entertaining popcorn action/adventure fare, not as deep as Empire Strikes Back, but almost surely not as bad as most Transformers films.

Where I disagree is with this line:

"The reality is that we all find it fun to imagine our version of the final chapter of a movie or TV series. But the creators have the responsibility of having to actually make a choice and do something."

The one thing that bother's me about TROS is that Lucasfilm did have a better choice available. Colin Treverrow's "Duel of the Fates" script (which you can read online) probably would have made for a more interesting and entertaining movie. The script wasn't perfect, but it was filmable and it was a choice Lucasfilm had available. I still don't know why they threw that draft out and went with JJ Abrams again. If you're interested, fans have made audio drama and comic book adaptations of the script:

http://audio-drama.com/doku.php/directory/audiodrama/duel_of_the_fates

http://awinegarner.squarespace.com/duel-of-the-fates
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 5:35am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

I don't think a movie could ever "ruin" my childhood. I loved Star Wars but I don't really think of myself as a "fan". It just seemed like everyone loved it back then. I certainly didn't attend conventions or dress up as a stormtrooper, or even own any of the toys. I didn't even see the original trilogy in theatres as that was before I was old enough to go to movies on my own (no way my parents would have taken me to it)

Anyway, I just respect Jammer and his views on things. Respect them, but don't always agree with them like with his low rating of Civil Defence for example.

But ya, it bugs me that he gives the new trilogy star ratings and reviews as high as he does mostly because I do respect him and I just can't understand how he doesn't see these films for what they are.

But I'm not going to machine gun his car over it.
Set Bookmark
Bok R'Mor
Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 12:56am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: VOY S5: Equinox, Part I

I'm curious about what must have happened when the Equinox was dragged to the Delta Quadrant by the Caretaker. Did Ransom and his crew make no attempt to negotiate a return to the Alpha Quadrant with the Caretaker, as Janeway and Voyager did? Did something happen (e.g. a Kazon attack?) that prevented Ransom and the Equinox from trying to negotiate? Did the Equinox simply flee as far as it could as soon as it could?

Recall that the main reason that Voyager wasn't returned to the Alpha Quadrant was that the Caretaker died and Janeway, in destroying the array, in her own words 'stranded them all in the Delta Quadrant'. It was possible for the Caretaker to return vessels; he simply claimed there wasn't time to do so in Voyager's case.

I don't have a problem with the Equinox and Voyager bumping into each other as Ransom specifically states the Equinox encountered a wormhole, and presumably both ships were both taking the most efficient course back to the Alpha Quadrant when they intersected. If the Equinox did flee the array in panic or due to some event that Voyager did not experience, that would also explain how the Equinox took a different course than Voyager (encountering different space and different species, as Ransom recounts) up to encountering and passing through the wormhole, whereupon the Equinox's and Voyager's courses would once again converge.
Set Bookmark
MidshipmanNorris
Sun, Sep 26, 2021, 11:11pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: DS9 S4: Our Man Bashir

You know, when I first saw this episode, my initial gut reaction was "A holodeck episode, oh great."

But on rewatching it soon after (my Dad taped all the Star Trek shows as they aired), I realized what the real stylistic throughline was. It's true that Goldeneye was released very recently when this was made. But, think about how Goldeneye had to work as a sort of "60's throwback" style movie. There was a lot of this in the 90s, to be honest. This was way before the Matrix when people were all like "Yeah Woodstock 93 baby wooo" and the Beatles Anthology was out. People were getting into 60's stuff, and I was no exception, digging into Jimi Hendrix records and such.

"Our Man Bashir," then, not only chooses to riff on 007's newly minted repopularization, but it's also, like GoldenEye, a bit of a 60s period piece. The decor (which Garak makes it a point to complain about late in the episode...not an art deco fan I see lol), the clothing (Garak complains about the turtleneck), the music (Jay Chattoway really outdid himself), right down to Alexander Siddig's accent being ... well, perfect for the idea, it all just screams late 60s spy flick. They really went right to the hilt with it.

The difference is that, since a holodeck malfunction episode doesn't have to have real bearing on reality, they had the ability to play it in a sort of dark comedic way, but I don't find that the episode is all that funny, in most cases ("Mona Lovesitt" aside... although it is a huge groaner of a pun). It does create a bit too much push-pull between drama and comedy, though of course you realize if you've been watching Trek for long that they aren't gonna off 2/3 of the main cast, hehehe.

The organization of this episode is one of its highlights. Shimerman, Grodenchik, Marshall and Auberjonois all do an excellent job of making the exposition all very clear; they are just four actors flexing and they really make it work, despite it all being very boilerplate Treknobabble.

I think the biggest flaw in the episode is that it's trying to pack two 45 minute TV Drama episodes into one 45 minute time slot. :) This has the side effect of ruining the pacing of both stories. I think this would have made a better two-parter, but at the same time, stretching a holodeck period piece to a two-parter feels like a bit of a cheat... I'm looking at you, "The Killing Game." Yeah, we know you're not gonna Holo-Kill Off the main cast, guys, come on. It's really transparent (sorry...) drama, but at the same time, it provides for enough tension to move the plot forward.

I think 3 stars is fair, but only for this reason:

The Magic of Garak.

Andrew Robinson makes this episode really *work.* The contrast between his experiences in the Obsidian Order and this flashy, Andy Warhol-esque fever dream version of it dreamed up by humans 300 years before, is the majorly delicious and perfectly cooked and seasoned meat of the plot.

This is where the thinky-stuffs are at. Star Trek is always at its best when it goes for the thinky-stuffs. And Andrew Robinson delivers. He provides the "outsider perspective" for one thing, that you need in order to draw someone into an idea like this; the fact that it is Andrew Robinson doing it gives it a bit of a cute touch; for the first time in a while, Garak finds himself in a completely unfamiliar setting, but doing what he does best, ironically enough.

That's some good thinky-stuffs. I like the contrasting point of view that Garak brings to the tale, and his line "I think I joined the wrong intelligence service" is 100% gold.

It can be kind of paltry and pat at times, but between the great score and Andrew Robinson's lugubriousness, it's a winner.
Set Bookmark
William B
Sun, Sep 26, 2021, 10:55pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S6: Tapestry

@Peter, good observation. I especially like the idea that the laugh is a kind of time loop. One other little detail is how "Tapestry" ends with Picard opening up to Riker, friend-to-friend, about other of his adventures, which presages the poker game at the end of "AGT," where Picard even references his being a poker player in his youth (which might also imply some of the rapscallion days). Q ostensibly mocks Picard's interpersonal connections, but I think there's a case to be made that he's subtly positioning to be a little closer to him (Picard needs to be able to rely on others in order to become his best self).
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Sun, Sep 26, 2021, 10:41pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S6: Tapestry

I just realized something about Tapestry, which was sort of always on the tip of my mind, but I never quite grasped concretely. This episode is really the proto-All Good Things, to the point of almost being a direct prequel of that story, including the anti-causality lesson.

Those of us who've seen this one many times know the story all too well. And in fact it may still surprise us when we watch The Samaritan Snare once in a blue moon that that was the time this story was actually first told, including the detail of Picard laughing when he was stabbed. But Tapestry does something completely different with that established fact, which is to create a parallel-universe time loop wherein Picard dies, goes back into the past, changes it, regrets it, and then gets to set it right again, and that exact Picard that went through all that is the one inhabiting the body of the 21 year old Jean-Luc Picard when he's stabbed. He laughed because of the irony that he was actually relieved to have won back the chance to die of heart failure. But that laugh was always part of the canon - meaning that Picard's actual past *always* had consisted of a convergence of potential futures when a future Picard made sure to aim him toward that Nausicaan, and where Q was responsible for it. So that means Q was always directly responsible for Picard becoming (or continuing to become) who he finally was.

The next step after this is All Good Things, where Q decides to teach Picard how to think non-linearly, to expand his mind. I doubt the writing staff had a grand plan in mind, but one can almost imagine they did, where Picard's de facto godfather, Q, has been tending to this man, making sure he became the captain he could, and then seeing him go beyond that at the right time. It almost could have been the premise for a new series...

Now I suppose it's always possible that the laugh at the stabbing was originally some hysterical reaction, and Q retconned it into being an ironic laugh of knowing it means the future was set right. So this would then be a new past timeline or something. But I prefer to think of it as a causality loop, maybe on aesthetic grounds. It's just attractive to have Picard's history as we know owe it all to Q the joker. I guess I like the idea of a bit of mischief being the magic ingredient to a proper order being established.
Next ►Page 1 of 3,437
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2021 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. Terms of use.