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: 67,106 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 2,685
Set Bookmark
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 12:44pm (UTC -6)
Re: PIC S1: Remembrance


Yes, I forgot the Captain's Yacht from "Insurrection" is seen in model at the Starfleet archive.

In "Pegasus" (is it "the Pegasus"? I can't remember), Pressman was working with Starfleet Intelligence to resurrect the phased cloak, violating a treaty with Romulans. He told Picard that he'd be risking his command and his career by opposing him or snooping around. The teaser to that episode was Captain Picard Day.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 12:31pm (UTC -6)
Re: PIC S1: Remembrance


How does 'Pegasus' relate?

The movie 'Insurrection' does for sure. (Picard renouncing his Star Fleet rank)
Set Bookmark
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 12:26pm (UTC -6)
Re: PIC S1: Remembrance

I enjoyed this overall, which I wasn't sure I would.

One thing I appreciated is that all of the overt references that many seem to read as fan service (and to a degree, they are) allude to episodes of TNG that are thematically linked to this story.

--Measure of a Man
--The Offspring

all deal with Picard standing up to some aspect of Starfleet/the Federation on moral grounds. While I have no idea who saved the banner for Captain Picard Day after the D crashed, that artefact represents what makes Picard Picard. It reminded us (and Riker) what a moral compass looks like before being challenged by an unethical edict from Starfleet.

The other major thread from TNG that I thought was interesting to have picked up on was from "Birthright"/"Phantasms." It's been established that Data's subconscious transmutes anodyne information into seemingly fantastical imagery.

I enjoyed this much more than I have Discovery so far. It's possible "Picard" is able to deliver on the cynical Federation angle in a more convincing/less frustrating way than DS9 did. Curious to see where things lead.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 12:25pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Nemesis

Nemesis (a movie i'd rate around 1.5 stars and TFF is probably 1 or lower) is not a hill I'm willing to die on, but I do sort of like the puzzle-solving mechanics of the movie. We have the mystery of the B4 wreckage and Thalaron radiation which are solved handily by the crew in similar fashion to a TNG episode. The ominous offer to parlay with a new Romulan leader and the opportunity for peace is an intriguing idea. But like I mentioned, despite this potential it all sort of goes downhill from here.

"Re: Sybok's 'leadship skills', I think we were actually meant to not know how he does it. I personally thought (and still think) it's fairly clear he's abusing telepathy to massage people's minds to make him more persuasive, and that it's not just his public speaking skills. The way they behave reads as more than just driven by faith or belief. That said I do think the writing is supposed to show that following Sybok is analogous to following some nice-sounding version of God, in that the teachings sort of take over your brain and you don't act rationally anymore. Especially since Sybok is a fraud and in this film so is God. But at least there's a message there - use science and reason, and don't go based on just gut. Going on gut gets you into wars with Klingons; thinking clearly lets you jettison fake gods and unnecessary aggression. So I think his mind control thing is all part of this general theme, but it's just not written very well."

Yeah, there's definitely potential in the concept of a false prophet manipulating people with a false God, but it's all too undercooked. I don't think the mechanics of Sybok bothers me as much as the half-hearted nature in which they're presented in the movie. At least in TWOK we know how Khan is manipulating which people and why. TFF just makes mind control too much of a given (literally the whole crew of the Enterprise follows him without an on-camera explanation). Did he really have the time to go through 60+ crewmembers' heads and have them relive some moment of their life without resistance? It doesn't look like it, and I'm not even sure if that's what the filmmakers wanted to go for.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 12:01pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Nemesis

I agree with Peter G. in that ST:V for all its faults, at least wasn't boring. It is the kind of movie I am even happy to watch again now and then.

Nemesis was irredeemably bad from day 1. I would not bother saying it didn't age well because I am certain it is exactly now as I remembered it and always will be.

One thing I wanted to add was my befuddlement at how it seemed the effects went drastically downhill in the TNG era movies. In First Contact we still had the gorgeous beam effects and colorful blue and red torpedoes especially in the Borg battle.

By Nemesis it's these trashy little pew pew effects for the phasers, barely there torpedoes and dark ugly visuals and shabby ship designs. The Romulan ships in Nemesis just look like trash - what a step down from the gorgeous D'Deridex warbirds from the TV show.

But then Discovery came along and we hit a brand new low. In The Battle of the Binary Stars it was so fuzzy and ugly I literally didn't know which ships were Federation and which ships were Klingon or even who was firing and what.

I mean who would have thought that after all these years I'd be pining for the effects from 1987 if for no other reason to know what the hell is going on?
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 11:57am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Nemesis

@ Chrome,

Oh I agree and could list more faults than that with TFF. But my point was that despite its shortcomings it was often fun and entertaining, if under-plotted. Nemesis is rarely fun. The two may be on par with the "huh??" factor, but at least TFF is not boring (except at the start on that Nimrod planet or whatever).

Re: Sybok's 'leadship skills', I think we were actually meant to not know how he does it. I personally thought (and still think) it's fairly clear he's abusing telepathy to massage people's minds to make him more persuasive, and that it's not just his public speaking skills. The way they behave reads as more than just driven by faith or belief. That said I do think the writing is supposed to show that following Sybok is analogous to following some nice-sounding version of God, in that the teachings sort of take over your brain and you don't act rationally anymore. Especially since Sybok is a fraud and in this film so is God. But at least there's a message there - use science and reason, and don't go based on just gut. Going on gut gets you into wars with Klingons; thinking clearly lets you jettison fake gods and unnecessary aggression. So I think his mind control thing is all part of this general theme, but it's just not written very well.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 11:34am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Nemesis

I wrote a review of TFF recently and I really wanted to like it. I think the comedy bits you mentioned, Peter, are the best parts of that movie. And of course Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley can sell the hell out of any script. Still, even on those points, there's some troublesome comedy like the drunken rowboat song that doesn't go anywhere (or it's a lousy metaphor) and the Uhura fan dance to sneak into a heavily armed compound that's more of a Looney Toons joke than a legitimate story proposition.

Despite TFF's grand intentions which I admit are there, the Sybok plot is just abysmal. They never make it clear if he's using some sort of mind trick on everyone or he's genuinely a charismatic leader. If it's the former, they should show him doing the trick to the Enterprise crew to explain their mutiny. If it's the latter, they need to actually develop scenes where we can understand why people (even the Romulan Commander?!) would want to abandon their lives and join him.

Perhaps fittingly, both Nemesis and The Final Frontier use the same "misguided version of a beloved character" high concept and without a really good script it's a dead end.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 11:19am (UTC -6)
Re: PIC S1: Remembrance


"It appeared to me that Synth are no longer allowed to exist. What happened with the existing ones? Were they allowed to continue to exist and if they wanted to make new ones were they not allowed. Isn't that the synth equivalent of sterilization? And if all the remaining synth were shut down Blade runner style then wouldn't that basically be a genocide because some synth committed an act of terror?"

Again, lots of reasonable questions, but also lots of speculation because we haven't been given enough info on current state of society or just what exactly went down between Picard and the top brass, which is why the cries about "this is not my optimistic star trek!" because of what a sensationalist reporter said to provoke Picard seem premature.

But I'm surprised you think "genocide" of synths is somehow completely alien to Trek - we have holograms being used as slave labor in VOY, androids being treated as co-optable property in TNG even after Measure of a Man in Offpsring, forcible relocation of people in TNG with Journey's End, and actual planned genocide of a species in TNG with I Borg/Descent and DS9 with When it Rains.

@John Harmon
"I really hope it’s not Picard inspiring the Federation back into being “good.” That sounds so hamfisted and terrible. And is what they already did with Discovery season 1, having Michael Burnham make Starfleet see the error of its ways."

Burnham and S1's ending were completely unearned was the main problem with that. The message that ideals have to be continually fought for and good men can't do nothing, the fed "utopia" cannot just be taken for granted, did not come across as hamfisted in the top-tier episode Drumhead for example - it's a good optimistic Trek message.

"Having the random admiral be corrupt is far different from an entire civilization being corrupt."

The point of the admirals, cadets/captains, and even Fed Council itself, being corrupt is to give some context to the oft-repeated claim that the Fed is just some utopia and humanity has moved beyond all vices and cynicism, and that anything that even approaches humanity and fed not being perfect is "grimdark non-trek".

"It’s beyond absurdity to think a culture made up of 150 different planets could be isolationist and xenophobic."

I agree, which is why I hope we get more info in later eps on the broader state of Earth and the Fed. Right now we just have an exchange between a sensationalist reporter and the idealistic Picard. I imagine the truth will be more nuanced and lie somewhere in the middle.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 11:11am (UTC -6)
Re: PIC S1: Remembrance

'Picard' setting streaming records for CBS All Access. (not surprising)

... and Critics 95%/Audience 81% on Rotten Tomatoes.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 10:58am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Nemesis

Heh, I'll throw my hat in the ring on the side of The Final Frontier here. Like the SW prequels, people have come to bash ST: V much more than anyone did when it first came out. Generally from people I know and from what I heard the reception to TFF was that it was a bit odd but still fun in places and generally enjoyable. Not a great film, and weak compared to ST: IV, but still enjoyable. It had that grand epic feel to it, underscored by the simple friendships shown in the park. And we may scoff now, but the theatre-goers when I saw it loved Spock's rocket boots gag. And so did I. That it's all about how God may be god, or rather some angry alien, is a rather broad concept that didn't get much exploration, but we did have the setup for the Federation/Klingon alliance here, as well as a lead-up towards the "we pretty much need to retire" feeling, which is a step away from ST: IV where they were very much in the center of action still. It's not a bad movie IMO and at the present time is underrated.

Nemesis, on the other hand - I was cringing in the theatre when I first saw it. The freshness of it did nothing to forestall groans at certain parts. A year or two after that I thought maybe I was a bit harsh and I got a DVD copy to give it another chance. I could not sit through the whole thing, it was so boring. It didn't even look good, visually, and the dialogue was useless. I can't say much to recommend it at all, frankly, and I think it is not only the worst Trek film in comparison to the others, but it's just a plain bad film by any standard. I have still never watched it again to this day, and can't imagine why I would want to.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 10:49am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Nemesis


I’m not sure if age makes a difference because there wasn’t much to begin with. I think what they were trying to go for is to give us these Data and Picard duplicates who could potentially be very disruptive people on the wrong side, but the key difference between the fakes and the originals is a lifelong career in Starfleet. The problem, besides “evil clone” being a terrible movie cliche, is that the duplicates end up being way too different from the originals. It would’ve been nice if we actually cared about Shinzon or B4 and pitied their fate in intergalactic politics. But Shinzon is scripted as a generic bad guy right from the start and B4 is more annoying than cute. Also, there should be a ton of political intrigue in a Romulan rebellion story but most of that is sacrificed by a single bloody coup scene without context.

I think the beginning with the build up before the reveal is actually the best part. But there is so much unspent potential. You mentioned the lack of sets and I agree - since the Titan was mentioned, why wasn’t it used in the film? STVI benefits from having this great new ship with Sulu in command — basically showing us that the Kirk spirit will go on. Why can’t Riker have his command here to do the same?

That said, it’s hard not to like TNG cast and even the Janeway nod. I don’t think this is quite as bad as The Final Frontier because even if this one is pretty dumb, it’s coherent and straightforward.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 10:37am (UTC -6)
Re: PIC S1: Remembrance


"The Persians, the Romans and so on were very open to other cultures and included many elements into their own."

Empires that conquer and stomp every nation in their path are hardly good examples of tolerant societies. Not sure were you got the idea that the ROMANS (of all people) were somehow free of prejudice or dehumanizing those they conquered. They weren't any friendlier to their own citizens who practiced minority religions, either. Feeding non-pagans to the lions is hardly a behavior that we should try to emulate...

And I've yet to hear of ancient tribes that accepted everybody as their equals. In the harsh ancient world, such behavior would have been suicidal. If there were such a tribe, it would not live long enough to leave a mark in history.

Of-course today the opposite is true. Given the power that technology gives every single person on this planet, we better learn how to work together and accept one another, or we'll literally destroy ourselves.

With TNG-level technology, the pressure to correct our old ways would be even greater. Can you imagine the chaos that will ensue, if we gave present day humans the power of replicators and transporters? Yikes.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 10:05am (UTC -6)
Re: PIC S1: Remembrance

"Our business here is to be Utopian, to make vivid and credible, if we can, an imaginary whole and happy world. We are to turn our backs for a moment upon the insistent examination of the thing that is, and face towards the freer air, the ampler spaces of the thing that perhaps might be, to designing upon the sheet of our imaginations the picture of a life conceivably possible, and yet better worth living than our own. That is our present enterprise.

It is no doubt an optimistic enterprise. But it is good for awhile to be free from the carping note that must be sounded when we discuss our present imperfections, to release ourselves from practical difficulties and the tangle of ways and means. It is good to stop by the track for a space, put aside the knapsack, wipe the brows, and talk a little of the upper slopes of the mountain we think we are climbing, would but the trees let us see it.

But for all that, we must needs define certain limitations. Were we free to have our untrammelled desire, I suppose we should follow Morris to his Nowhere, we should change the nature of man and the nature of things together; we should make the whole race wise, tolerant, noble, perfect—wave our hands to a splendid anarchy, every man doing as it pleases him, and none pleased to do evil, in a world as good in its essential nature, as ripe and sunny, as the world before the Fall.

But that golden age, that perfect world, comes out into the possibilities of space and time. In space and time the pervading Will to Live sustains for evermore a perpetuity of aggressions. Our proposal here is upon a more practical plane at least than that. We are to restrict ourselves first to the limitations of human possibility as we know them in the men and women of this world to-day, and then to all the inhumanity, all the insubordination of nature. We are to shape our Utopia in a world of uncertain seasons, sudden catastrophes, antagonistic diseases, and inimical beasts and vermin, out of men and women with like passions, like uncertainties of mood and desire to our own. And, moreover, we are going to accept this world of conflict, to adopt no attitude of renunciation towards it, to face it in no ascetic spirit, but in the mood of the Western peoples, whose purpose is to survive and overcome. So much we adopt in common with those who deal not in Utopias, but in the world of Here and Now.

And much of the essential value of all such speculation lies in this assumption of emancipation, lies in that regard towards human freedom, in the undying interest of the human power of self-escape, the power to resist the causation of the past, and to evade, initiate, endeavor, and overcome." - HG Wells
Set Bookmark
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 9:10am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Nemesis

Boy, this film has not aged well. Somehow it feels more dated than the other TNG films even though it was made last.
First, the pace is incredibly slow (like TNG-season-one slow). The plot is simple and straightforward (and as I recall, it was all given away by the trailers, except maybe the ending). It’s essentially one interminable buildup to one interminable action sequence.
It’s also a very static film. Aside from the wedding and a few scenes on Romulus, the entire film takes place aboard the Enterprise and the Scimitar. Compare that to the multiple locations of any other Trek film. These are small gripes, perhaps, but they sure don’t help.
From a character standpoint, I would say “What characters?” Perhaps that’s a little harsh. But aside from Picard, very little of the dialogue has anything to do with who these people are. They find B-4, but Data is barely allowed to react to the discovery, and they never mention Lore. Riker and Troi get married, but that doesn’t tell us anything about them; the dialogue during the wedding could be about any couple. Geordi spends the whole film spewing technobabble. Worf and Crusher are just… there. Data sacrifices himself to save Picard, but his decision is not based on anything that happens during the film, and it tells us nothing new about him. Why oh why couldn’t he have had his emotion chip? That alone would not have saved the film, but at least it he would have had the potential for growth.
Were the producers afraid to alienate non-Trek fans? Did they forget that First Contact was a tremendous success even though its story was heavily dependent on prior events (specifically “The Best of Both Worlds”)?
Getting back to Picard, I think the idea of him questioning how his life and his decisions have shaped him is a good one, but it was already addressed, in a much more moving fashion, in “Tapestry.” And Picard clone or not, the idea that a human raised on Remus could become leader of the Romulan Empire is preposterous, and Shinzon looks like a pretty terrible leader to boot.

Insurrection was a mediocre film with a questionable message. But at least it had a sense of fun about it and each character got at least one good moment (Geordi got to see the sunrise for the first time, Riker and Troi rekindled their relationship, etc.). That makes Nemesis the worst TNG film (and the second-worst Trek film overall) in my book.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 8:30am (UTC -6)
Re: PIC S1: Remembrance

After so many painfull yeats star trek picard is back to the star trek ethos and storry tellimg and universe. A little mote dystopian more on the line of DS9 than TNG ΒUT STILL TREK IN THE OPTIMISM OF THE OUTCOME. i wish they would cancel the absurd Discovery and the abomination of section 31 show and give us more episode of picard.
Set Bookmark
Cody B
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 7:24am (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S2: Tattoo

I can’t say I’m a big fan of this episode. It just didn’t do much for me. I do have a guess about why the hawk attacked Neelix. Neelix was the most “alien” to that land. The least native. His career was also scavenging and taking from lands he visited. So the hawk (symbol of the land/natives) viewed him as the most threatening and most likely to rape the land.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 6:18am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S1: The Battle

@SkepticalMI it's 6 1/3 years since your comment but your point about Dr. Crusher really bothered me too on my most recent viewing.

I would have loved to hear Dr. Crusher mention Jack at least once, or have some emotional reaction to the Stargazer.

Even Picard's reaction to a ship that he commanded for 20 years and spoke in "Relics" about being his first true love is overly subdued and lacking - but then, he did have a headache :D

Also to @Jason R's point about the log not holding up for any length of time. That kind of bugged me on my most recent viewing, too. Why did Bok bother trying?

Still, the eerie quality of Picard's flashbacks kinda work for me. It might have something to do with me first seeing this episode when I was about 6 or 7. It was very spooky and it stuck with me!
Set Bookmark
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 4:42am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S3: Facets

I assumed that because Odo can take on other forms, he could in theory, replicate humanoid physiology and become intoxicated on ethanol or ethanol-like beverages.

Also the concept of Trill love is fascinating to me. Sad we only get one scene really exploring this in depth. This was great
Set Bookmark
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 2:39am (UTC -6)
Re: PIC S1: Remembrance


You've convinced me... partially.

I loved your analysis, which could be a strong starting point for a new Trek series.

But I'm still skeptical as to whether ST:P is really going to follow this route.

The blunt way the issues were handled so far, leaves me worried. Why even go to yet another 9-11 allegory, when the events of DS9 were already enough to serve as a starting point for such a story? The entire Mars attack background story leaves me cold.

Not to mention that everything here, with the exception of the always excellent Patrick Stewart, doesn't exactly scream sophistication. If this is what they chose to show us in episode 1, are they really up to telling this kind of complex story?

Seems doubtful.

But like Nolan said:

"Whether it does we will have to see."

Set Bookmark
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 2:37am (UTC -6)
Re: PIC S1: Remembrance

"Tribalism and fear of "the other" are hard-wired into the human brain."

It is Human instinct to form groups. That is it. That is were instinct ends and everything that comes after that has nothing to do, to speak in laymans terms, with our monkey brain. There are tribal societies who are very open to "the other" there are tribal societies who are not. The Persians, the Romans and so on were very open to other cultures and included many elements into their own. There are countless examples in human history were societies do not show any fear of the "other". So tribalism is a result of human instinct in the sense that we form groups but seeing "the other" as bad or good is a societal construct that a tribe can have or not have.

In your last two paragraphs you more or less make the conclusion yourself.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 2:05am (UTC -6)
Re: PIC S1: Remembrance


You have this very ugly habit of distorting other people's words (like you did with Trent here) and turning them into strawmen. It's not the first time you've done that, and I'm not interested in this dishonest kind of discussion.

So I'm done talking to you.

"Well, then using the term instinct makes even less sense. If you are racist towards people who dress differently or use a different language then that has nothing to do with instinct."

Of-course it does. Tribalism and fear of "the other" are hard-wired into the human brain. Just because the instinct itself existed before nations and languages and football teams, does not mean that it cannot manifest in those directions as well.

The question is: What do we do with this fact? Do we whine that humanity is doomed to a perpetual torturous existence because we're such flawed creatures? Or do we look for ways to manage these instincts and even focus them towards positive directions?

Reminds me of one of Kirk's famous speeches. To paraphrase: We are barabrians and killers, but we can decide that we are not going to kill today.

Gerontius was right on the mark, when he said that these instincts only pose a real danger when they're part of the system. That's one of the positive aspects of tribalism: If a person's "tribe" frowns upon these kinds of behaviors, they are far less likely to engage in them. Doubly so, if they've been taught from a very young age that curbing these instincts would make a better world for everyone (including themselves). After all, it's for the benefit of the tribe, isn't it?

And the reverse is also true. If people live in a society that believes humanity is sh*t and there's nothing we can do about it, this may turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is the reason that the current cynical trends scare me so much, and also the reason why - despite that fear - I'm not willing to abandon hope that the future will be better.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 1:39am (UTC -6)
Re: PIC S1: Remembrance

@ Quincy
Maybe you don't understand what instinct is. Instinct by definition means unlearned behavior. Saying that this group is me, creating a spectrum that means "my group" which then also defines "not my group" is obviously not an unlearned behavior. I'm just explaining why your believe that instinct is the driving force in racism is wrong.

I never said that there isn't for example in group favoritism and out group bias. That is a well established concept which can correlate with the concept racism but doesn't have to. Only because you define yourself as a fan of the Los Angeles Lakers doesn't mean that you want to exterminate the fans of the Dallas Mavericks.

I will now stop participating in this particular debate.

Your analysis is logical but is still in line with my argument because everything you describe happened after Gene Roddenberry died. It is just writer hammering Star Trek into something they can use for whatever story they want to tell. And while I really like DS9 I must admit that with that show the darkening of Star Trek began which more and more became the norm. I think DS9 worked so well because the vision of Roddenberry was still a very strong influence. John Harmon also has a point when he mentions that a Federation of 150 species becoming xenophobic is very odd.

As an aside. Making the Federation such an obvious mirror of the USA makes it less relevant for everybody else. It all boils down to American navel gazing. In Europe we don't have something like Fox News and 9/11 wasn't such an earth shattering thing over here. I think that they focused it so much on the USA because of CBS all access but it makes it less approachable for non Americans.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 12:57am (UTC -6)
Re: PIC S1: Remembrance


No. Racism in its basic form is simply one person hating or dehumanizing another person based on race. What you're talking about is institutionalized racism. In order for racism to become institutionalized, it has to already be present in some critical number of individuals. Then those individuals begin working together to spread their beliefs. Only then does institutionalized racism form. Institutional racism doesn't just magically appear one day.

As I posted above, there are biological components to prejudice. One component is the tendency of people to position themselves into ingroups and outgroups. Threat perception of outgroups is a primary contributor in dehumanization, which is a necessary component for many evils such as war, violence, hostility towards outgroups, etc. Prejudice is a primary component of racism. Individual racism is a primary component of institutionalized racism. There is a pathway of progression from the former to the latter. You don't just wake up one day in Apartheid. It has to come from somewhere and individuals with stupid beliefs are the ones making it happen.

"No Trek series ever could be called "rainbows and butterflies".

The optimistic vision of Star Trek slowly evolved and matured over 40 years, from the first baby steps of TOS to the impressive-yet-somewhat-naive view of TNG to the coming-of-age inspection of DS9 to the "let's show an intermediate step between present day and our vision" of ENT. It was a wonderful and complicated process, and it most certainly had room for varying degrees of "grittiness" (as long as this was in a proper context). People who confuse Trek's general optimism and idealism with "rainbows and butterflies" simply don't understand what Trek used to be about."

Certainly, not, which makes statements like Trent, where he champions the notion that the Federation is supposed to be incorruptible, quite strange.

You may or may not suffer from his delusion, but you don't seem to recognize that "rainbows and butterflies" refers to fans' idealistic views on what Trek is or isn't, not to Trek itself.

Trek managed its idealism; it was more often reasonable than not. People like you and Trent don't seem to be managing yours very well. Hence your problems with Discovery and now Picard.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 12:30am (UTC -6)
Re: PIC S1: Remembrance

"I know that you think social science is witch craft but saying that racism comes from instincts is so far off it is basically wrong. For example. Most of European history dark skinned people weren't considered less valuable Humans. The Romans didn't consider black skinned people less and used them in almost all ranks. One of the holy wise men in the bible was described as black (Balthazar). Racism towards black people developed during the last 400 years which has certain reasons but it has nothing to do with instincts."

Since we're making assertions about each other, I know you think that social science is the be-all and end-all of reality, but neuroscience and genetic research, which some might mistake for witchcraft, might just have something to say about this topic. Environment, including socio-economic environment, is only one component of ANY type of prejudice, despite your claims. Genetics and the way our brains actually work form another component, whether you acknowledge it or not.

"Every culture names the “us” and the “not-us.” It appears to be human nature, and many studies have shown how easy it is to provoke this kind of psychological distinction between our “in-groups” and “out-groups.”"

Effects of intergroup threat on mind, brain, and behavior, "...recent discoveries extend existing models, which mainly emphasize effects of intergroup threat on attitudes. Critically, these shifts in empathy, perceptual judgments, and representations interact with INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN SENSITIVITY to threat and fuel discrimination and hostility toward threatening outgroups"

"The Great Debate: XENOPHOBIA - Why do we fear others?"
"Is our instinct to form in-groups and out-groups, such an important part of our evolutionary history, now maladaptive as we face a future increasingly dependent upon cooperation and shared responsibilities toward limited resources?"
Set Bookmark
John Harmon
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 12:25am (UTC -6)
Re: PIC S1: Remembrance

I really hope it’s not Picard inspiring the Federation back into being “good.” That sounds so hamfisted and terrible. And is what they already did with Discovery season 1, having Michael Burnham make Starfleet see the error of its ways.

Having the random admiral be corrupt is far different from an entire civilization being corrupt. It’s beyond absurdity to think a culture made up of 150 different planets could be isolationist and xenophobic.
Next ►Page 1 of 2,685
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2020 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.