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: 63,136 (Showing 26-50)

Next ►◄ PreviousPage 2 of 2,526
Set Bookmark
William B
Sun, May 19, 2019, 12:22pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S2: Necessary Evil

@Michael, thank you!

I don't have an active blog. I'll let people know here if I get one.
Set Bookmark
Chrome
Sun, May 19, 2019, 11:04am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

Is it a bad sign that I’m more excited about season 3 of DuckTales than Discovery? :-)
Set Bookmark
Dom
Sun, May 19, 2019, 9:22am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

@Booming, at the end of the day, I do tend to err on the side of giving fans more rather than less freedom to voice their opinions. Disney, HBO, and CBS are massive corporations and already have a lot of power to shape the public discussion about their products. The actors and writers give interviews, hold events at cons, etc to promote their work. Your average fan on Twitter or Youtube is nothing compared to that. I do worry about a world in which these corporations deliberately whip up fans of their works to shout down fans who are more critical. I think we already saw a bit of that with The Last Jedi, which was a PR disaster. I refrained from talking too publicly about certain parts of that film for months because I didn't want to get labeled as a sexist or racist manbaby. Now, a worrying trend on the other side is that in aggregate fans do seem to have increasing power to shape the public discourse on the other side. I do think part of that is the media attention the most extreme parts of fandom get. If mainstream media outlets hadn't covered the GoT or Last Jedi petitions, I doubt they would have gotten nearly as many signatures. The outrage industrial complex shines a spotlight on fan outrage, increases fan outrage, and so on.
Set Bookmark
Meister
Sun, May 19, 2019, 8:58am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S7: Bloodlines

Look how the Ferengi have improved over the years of TNG. No longer cartoonish in the same way, they start to approach Quark and company as believable. Its funny that all we saw on DS9, to my recollection, is the commerce side of the Ferengi and not the military, scientists etc that we saw on TNG.

OMG Jason is a perfect Jack Nicholson. Why doesn't Picard show him the Holodeck. I bet there are great climbing programs in it...oops there it is


This was a nice calm look at Jason and Picard navigating their new relationship..not fake instant connection or forcing it. This was a nice arc for Picard and well acted by both him and Jason.


9/10

. I am not sure what to think of the Ferengi finding superior technology but it makes sense since they are wealthy and travel and trade far....its funny how Bok turns his knife around and safely gives the knife handle to his comrade when he surrenders..one billionth rule of acquisition .....never run with scissors.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Sun, May 19, 2019, 8:27am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

@ Colm Meanie
The Trump comment is a clear ad hominem (if you think that Trump is a horrible horrible horrible person) the rest is borderline guilt by association. When I say:"this is shit. Have fun digging around in it" then that is not only an attack on the show but also on the people who like it. (I'm taking this from wikipedia, could be wrong)

@Dom
These three questions seem very reasonable and a good example. Was season 2 about getting them into the future? If so then they were successful... somewhat. And was it worth doing so? eh...

About ad hominem. Let's say we find out that Kurtzman is an evil Hollywood sex pervert. Would it not be ok to say, you shouldn't watch that show because the guy who made it is a monster. I must admit I would be on the fence here. I cannot watch Mel Gibson stuff anymore. I cannot separate the art from the batshit crazy artist. Or Roman Polanski. Should he be shunned and then forgotten. I tend to say yes.
So I would argue that there are instances were ad hominem arguments are valid.

"You're right though, the line between critiques of the show and attacks on fans can perhaps become a bit blurry. Is "the writers must think the audience is stupid" an attack on show or on fans?"

And we have seen this stuff a lot which makes me fly out of the neutral zone with weapons charged. I can totally understand the critique of the show but I also respect people who like it and if somebody attacks them directly or indirectly... then that somebody can ring the bells as much as they want... ;)

To GoT. I wouldn't have believed it but I'm kind of hooked for the last episode. Never expected that. Fingers crossed for a horribly miserable ending! :D
(have you seen these articles. More than 3500 children were named Khalessi hahaha. O M G)
Set Bookmark
Dom
Sun, May 19, 2019, 7:53am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

@Booming,

I actually agree strongly with your first point on GoT. I was grinning during the episode, not because I'm a sociopath, but because for years I felt like that's where Dany's arc was going but I didn't think the show would have the guts to go through with it. Glad I was wrong.

I actually meant the Washington Post article (posted much higher in the thread), not that Vox article. I find it to be a useful attempt to structure film criticism. It suggests we ask three questions: "What was the artist trying to achieve? Did he or she achieve it? And was it worth doing?" What I like is that it gets us away from actually critiquing the art on its own terms rather than measuring it against our own expectations. So for me, for example, Discovery in Season 1 was trying to tell a war story, but it didn't succeed in the building the stakes or providing a satisfactory payoff. As much as I might want my Trek to be high-concept episodic sci-fi, Discovery was never going for that, so that might be a reason why I personally don't enjoy the show, but that's not a constructive critique of the show.

Which gets back to my point above. There's a difference between allowing fans to have their criticisms and those criticisms being constructive and leading to productive discussion. I believe strongly fans can and should be allowed to say whatever they want about a show and not attacked. At the same time, while I respect their right to disagree, that doesn't mean I have to respect their argument. If someone is launching ad hominem attacks, I'd say don't engage. That person just isn't worth your time. People online seem to think we're going to persuade people who disagree with us, but we just aren't. The social science on persuasion shows that it's much, much harder to get people to change their minds with facts and reason than most people believe.

You're right though, the line between critiques of the show and attacks on fans can perhaps become a bit blurry. Is "the writers must think the audience is stupid" an attack on show or on fans? I could see how someone might think they're just criticizing the art, but fans of the show would take it as a personal slight.
Set Bookmark
Colm Meanie
Sun, May 19, 2019, 6:24am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

@Booming
None of those examples are ad hominem arguments.
Set Bookmark
Perry
Sun, May 19, 2019, 6:22am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: The Road Not Taken

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheOrville/comments/bq62f8/scottadrianne_married/ and a season renewal, way to go!

O.T. Is the Games of Thrones truly ending forever? They have generated as many tv viewership as the whole globe.
Set Bookmark
Tim C
Sun, May 19, 2019, 6:15am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S4: Crossfire

Watched this one last night cause I was in a bad mood and wanted to see somebody in a worse one. Wasn't disappointed! Remains one of my favourite episodes of the show. Unrequited love, to put it delicately, fucking sucks, and Auberjonois' performance with Echevarria's writing give us a devastatingly on-point depiction of it.
Set Bookmark
Lizzy DataLover
Sun, May 19, 2019, 2:54am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S2: Elementary, Dear Data

@Booming

Ah, we meet again. I do apologize for my potty mouth but you know how passionate I become.

Also dude even if Data doesn't have emotions, (which I for one am on the fence about) that doesn't mean it's okay for Pulaski to just stomp all over him! And my point about Moriarty is that if she really doesn't place much value on artifical intelligence then why is she so comfortable around a hologram, rather than an actual, physical being? I just will never understand her.

Which is why I am more than thankful they brought back Dr. Crusher. She may have been underused, but at least she was nice.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Sun, May 19, 2019, 2:11am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S2: Elementary, Dear Data

@ Lizzy
Language. :)
I think overcoming obstacles makes achieving a goal more rewarding. Also you cannot insult Data because he has no emotions. An insult is an attempt to make somebody feel bad which will never work with Data. And doesn't she come around in later episodes?

Plus Moriarty is portrayed as a perfect gentleman. She probably doesn't feel threatened maybe even gets a little kick out of it. You need a good sense of humor when you are hands deep in guts half the day.

And if your love for Data becomes to strong just click on this link: ;)
http://de.web.img3.acsta.net/r_1280_720/pictures/16/05/23/15/17/207405.jpg
Set Bookmark
Lizzy DataLover
Sun, May 19, 2019, 1:46am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S2: Elementary, Dear Data

I enjoyed this episode but ugh. Too much Pulaski. She managed to insult Data at least twenty times within the first ten minutes of the ep. And she was grossly wrong about everything she said too. No, Data would not "short circuit" if he had to solve a real mystery, he does it almost every day when he's on duty. And furthermore, I'd like to point out why Pulaski being on the show longer would not have been very appealing; having her around as a constant hamper on Data's quest for humanity would have ruined every episode involving his arc. He needs friends who encourage him like Geordi or Picard, not this bitch.

Worst part overall:
Pulaski seems perfectly comfortable around Moriarty, the douchebag hologram who kidnapped her; (she actually seemed kinda flirty) and yet she treats Data like shit, the sentient android who is nothing but kind and polite to her, even tho he should be flippin' her off. Ridiculous.

Also, am I the only one who noticed how Geordi sounds like he's got a cold?? Lol
Set Bookmark
Booming
Sun, May 19, 2019, 12:44am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

@ Omicron
Saying that there are more ad hominem attacks by Discovery fans is kind of a hollow argument. If I go into any fan forum and say stuff like the quotes below I wouldn't be surprised about negative reactions(I quote from stuff people said about Discovery during the last !two weeks! on this forum)

"Absolutely. This show is a farce."
"Who the f cares about 'The Red Angel'? Are we 10 or something?"
"This show is stupid. Period. End of Story. "
"That whole quote sounds like it was said by Donald Trump. No wonder I have a problem with the showrunning."
"I hate hate HATE the stupid, retarded, cartoonishly moronic mirror universe with an all-consuming passion. It's the dumbest, lamest, most idiotic thing Star Trek ever did, and why they keep doing it is a mystery to me. Every episode to feature it has been irredeemably putrid."
"You lot are welcome to pick the peanuts out of this poop, but I'm out."
Again last two weeks.

These are at least ad hominem attacks through the back door. And we had lots and lots AND LOTS of comments like these. So it's kind of understandable when people get defensive. I'm not a fan of Discovery but this stuff makes even me angry.

By the way saying that somebody uses strawman arguments without providing examples is a strawman argument. :D

And because we psychoanalyze each other Omicron, you seem a little rowdy lately. Everything all right? :)

@Dom
Did you mean the vox article? I read it but it was a little meandering as opinion pieces often are. I think there are limits to critique. Look at the stuff I posted above this. These technically are criticizing the franchise (a word I hate by the way) while pretty much also insulting the people who like Discovery.

With which I mean, that if you say ad hominem not ok, everything else ok then people will always find a way to get around that barrier. You censoring people too you just draw the line at a different place. At what place? At a place you think is right.

What if somebody thinks that ad hominem attacks are important to have a worthwhile discussion about something? What is your argument against that? and even if you have good arguments should you be allowed to enforce your anti ad hominem stance?
Set Bookmark
Springy
Sat, May 18, 2019, 10:30pm (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S3: The Paradise Syndrome

While I am weary of episodes featuring earth-like planets, which amazingly developed cultures exactly like those on Earth, this was a well done ep.

The plot hung together, it was sweet.

Shatner had a few majorily awkward moments, too hammy and such. But mostly, he did OK.

I liked it. Above average.
Set Bookmark
Mistah Datah
Sat, May 18, 2019, 10:03pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

“Can you give a single example from TNG that "stepped on TOS"?“

Just off the top of my head:

- The Warp system is completely rescaled and transwarp is forgotten.
- The years of the Eugenics Wars are changed.
- Data is supposed to be the first of his kind, but androids exist in TOS such as Mudd’s androids and the Sargon androids.
- Despite supposedly being offshoots of Vulcans, Romulans are given protruding foreheads in TNG.
- The first Enterprise is depicted as the movie version (“The Naked Now”).
- The Klingons measure in kilometers instead of kellicams like they do in other Treks.

The link above also gIves examples of Roddenberry disregarding TOS canon. You can see from the sources on that page that Roddenberry preferred a fluid canon that changed for a good story over following some strict rulebook. That Trek did as well as did canonically despite Roddenberry can likely be attributed to the studio keeping things in line. One advantage that TNG - ENT had were that the same rightsholders were in place and could keep things consistent (although there were still notable retcons like with the Trill and Borg).

“I also maintain that TNG and TOS are far closer in spirit than you're claiming. Sure, the style is somewhat different, but the themes are the same: Both shows are about a better future for humanity. Both shows are about exploring the unknown. Both shows have inspired many young people to become engineers or scientists.”

The latter half of your description is true with all the Treks, so I don’t want get into the weeds with you when we largely agree. My point was that TOS employed more of a conflict-style show than TNG. Famously, McCoy always had a bone to pick with Spock and called him racial epithets when they didn’t agree, which was often. The tone of the two shows is much different as well, with Kirk playing fast and loose with regulations and getting the Federation in hot water with other races (i.e The Klingons) whereas Picard paid close attention to Starfleet policies and formalities, preaching to others just how important it was not to break them.

“Comparing the TNG situation in 1987 to what's going on with Discovery today, doesn't make much sense.”

There’s enough similarities between the Trek reboots to make the discussion worthwhile. Like Discovery, TNG had the major backing of a studio that wanted Trek to do well in the long haul unlike the tenuous relationship TOS had with NBC. The span of time is similar albeit TNG took longer because Phase II got aborted. Also both the shows follow relative movie fame with TNG airing during the TOS movie peak and Discovery running after some modesty successful Trek movies.

I mentioned the TNG criticisms above, and today former cast members like Marina Sirtis criticize also Discovery. Although, it’s notable that Discovery actually has more support from the rank-and-file like Frakes than TNG did.

@Mertov
“Welcome to the forum and a great post. The hatred for TNG was not pedestrian and the anti-TNG discourse was led by prominent fan groups. Anti-DS9 discourse was even worse from what I remember (like I said, what the actors read - and they read numerous letters) was only half of the story.”

Yes, it’s easy to ignore these things nowadays because for a long Star Trek was “solved” with fans and writers more or less coming up with explanations that made all the retcons gel. I don’t mean to say Discovery doesn’t have serious continuity errors, because that’s disingenuous. I do think time will correct much of these errors, but In the meantime it’s great that fans point them out and keep the Disco team on their toes.
Set Bookmark
Michael
Sat, May 18, 2019, 9:40pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S2: Necessary Evil

William B,

I just wanted to let you know that your 2450 word comment was such a profound character analysis that I copied it into word so I can find it again later. If you have a blog I'd love to read it. Bravo.
Set Bookmark
Mertov
Sat, May 18, 2019, 9:33pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

"What I do have problem with, is people who choose to mock and ridicule and erect strawmen instead of having an honest discussion. Especially people who do this on a constant on-going basis."

Then, since you bring up 'honest discussion,' you may want to consider watching the show before slamming it repeatedly. Or maybe not portray the fans of a particular Trek series as "the lowest common denominator" as you have done in the past.
---

"It might come as a shock to you, but I have this crazy belief that people are free like or dislike whatever shows they want for whatever reasons they want."

Nice try again, as if I said people were not free to do that. Speaking of honest discussion...
---

"So you want the last word, eh?
No problem. I've already said everything that needs to be said. Enjoy."

Now that's honest. So have I. You enjoy too. Just don't expect one to stay quiet when you label their position "ridiculous."
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, May 18, 2019, 9:06pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

@Mertov

When I said "snippets", I was referring to your use of phrases like ""It's not Star Trek" and "soap opera" and "killing the franchise" while completely ignoring the actual points that were being made by the people you're so eager to make fun of.

And yes, I say "us" because you've chosen to ridicule an entire group of people with your unfair comparison.

"What is this urge of yours to group people together and pit them against one another?"

On the contrary.

As far as I'm concerned, there are no camps here. I have absolutely no quarrel with the fans of Discovery. It might come as a shock to you, but I have this crazy belief that people are free like or dislike whatever shows they want for whatever reasons they want.

What I do have problem with, is people who choose to mock and ridicule and erect strawmen instead of having an honest discussion. Especially people who do this on a constant on-going basis.

"Quit the drama for once, and let it go"

So you want the last word, eh?

No problem. I've already said everything that needs to be said. Enjoy.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhiw
Sat, May 18, 2019, 8:03pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

@Mistah Datah

"Maybe, although Roddenberry has gone on the record saying TOS is non-canon versus TNG. He was trying to do the show he wanted to do, and didn't mind stepping on TOS when it suited him."

Can you give a single example from TNG that "stepped on TOS"?

"I'm confused, is this hyperbole? I've watched Discovery and don't feel mocked."

I wasn't talking about Discovery itself. I was talking about what CBS did in the year before the show debuted and during the first season.

"I think Roddenberry would be dissatisfied because he spent considerable effort trying to distance TNG from TOS. "

Exactly.

He was trying to *distance* TNG from TOS, which is a very different thing from trying to override TOS or somehow overturn it.

That's why he set TNG a century further in the future. That way he could pretty much tell any stories he wanted without worrying too about previous continuity.

It worth noting, though, that Roddenberry could have easily introduced deliberate contradictions with TOS, had he wanted to do invalidate the older show. He didn't do that. So regardless of his opinions on whether TOS should be regarded as canon, he had enough respect for his older material to leave it alone.

"But for Roddenberry, TNG's success meant giving up the TOS model and try a more diplomatic, conflict-free future."

Huh?

Roddenberry always said that TNG was the way he wanted to do Star Trek in the first place. That was his vision of the future. What does "TNG's success" have to do with it (and how can a show's success retroactively influence the way it was conceived from day 1)?

I also maintain that TNG and TOS are far closer in spirit than you're claiming. Sure, the style is somewhat different, but the themes are the same: Both shows are about a better future for humanity. Both shows are about exploring the unknown. Both shows have inspired many young people to become engineers or scientists.

Also, there's a huge difference between the actual creator of a show making a few changes after 3 low-budget seasons, and a mega-corp making massive changes after 28 seasons of creating a detailed rich fictional world.

In short: No, comparing the TNG situation in 1987 to what's going on with Discovery today, doesn't make much sense.
Set Bookmark
Mertov
Sat, May 18, 2019, 7:36pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

Oh my God.. Grow up, will you?

Who is taking snippets? I copied and pasted your whole conclusive paragraph, and answered to it. Unlike you who has taken four or five words out of my sentences in the past and distorted what I said. Would you like me to remind you? It wasn't that long ago, I am sure you remember.

And what is this obsession of yours with "we" vs. "you"?
- "Please enlighten us," - the royal "us" again.
- Another whole paragraph of "we"s in your answer to Alcoremor
- "You and Mertov" (in your answer to Alcoremor)
- "Dom, Trent, and myself"?
What is this urge of yours to group people together and pit them against one another?

Did I address Dom or Trent? No, I addressed you specifically. I am actually learning a lot, for instance, from what Dom and Booming are debating above. If I had a problem with anyone else I'd address them. I don't meddle in the "us vs them" business.

And I addressed you *only* because, you labeled what I said "ridiculous." So, you're the one who started attacking me first. What did you think, that you can just attack what I said, label it "ridiculous," and expect that I bow my head and say nothing return? Quit the drama for once, and let it go.

@Alcoremor
I've had the "90s: "Star Trek : The Making of the Lost Series" book in my shelves since mid-2000s and still have not gotten around to reading it (my Star Trek literature taking a hit for an eight-year period to do research for grad school and PhD). Now that you mentioned it, I may get to it next week while on vacation. But I do have a few novels to catch up first, so I gotta make a choice, although after reading your post, I am tempted to delve into that one first.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, May 18, 2019, 6:34pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

@Mertov
"LOL, it's the same franchise (Star Trek), same fan base (Trekkies), and even the mottos in the hate-rhetoric are the same ("It's not Star Trek," "soap opera," "killing the franchise")."

Is that your usual way of having discussions? Taking snippet phrases out of context and completely ignoring the actual issue at hand?

How about actually addressing the points that the detractors of DSC have raised? How about trying to have an actual honest discussion for a change, instead of constantly looking for ways to trap your "opponents" in some kind of "Gotcha"?

(who am I kidding...)
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, May 18, 2019, 6:06pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

@Alcoremor
"If a show is flawed, let's focus on the flaws, without using the royal we's (not to mention the strident tone and ad hominem attacks, as if to simplly disagree with someone is to insult the core of their existence)"

Interesting comment. Can you give a single example of a Discovery detractor who is using ad hominem attacks against the fans of Discovery?

Because I can give you dozens of examples that go the other way. We've been accused of being misogynist and of being racist. We've been attributed ridiculous strawman opinions, while the actual content of our posts was completely ignored (my "favorite" is the attempt to paint us as some continuity fanatics who nitpick the tiniest things and expected Discovery to have '60s-style cardboard sets).

And then there's Mertov comment and yours. Please enlighten us: What point could your comments possibly serve, except trying to paint people like Dom and Trent and myself in a ridiculus light? You've responded to none of our points. You haven't even *acknowledged* any of our points. You just compared us to a group of crazy narrow-minded fans from 30 years ago, without giving a shred of evidence that this comparison is justified in any way.

So who is doing the generalizations here? Who is doing the ad-hominem attacks?

Not me, that's for sure.

And let me tell you another thing:

These constant unfair attacks by people who call themselves Trek fans, is part of the reason I'm no longer a fan. As if the issues I have with the show itself aren't enough, posts like yours constantly remind me why I don't want to be part of this fandom anymore. What used to be a lovable geeky fandom has turned into an Orwellian nightmare, where claiming that black is white is the norm.

@Booming
"Who trashed the fans or the critical fans to be precise??"

You're right. Obviously, this kind of cr*p never ever happens. My mistake. :-P
Set Bookmark
Meister
Sat, May 18, 2019, 4:39pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S7: Firstborn

I like Worf and Alexander and enjoy seeing them both evolve as characters and as father and son.



9/10
Set Bookmark
alcoremor
Sat, May 18, 2019, 4:30pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

@mertov
"Fans like you (and that would be the singular "you," not the group for which you appear to be elected the spokesman) or I don't get to decide what is in the Star Trek ethos. We are not that important."

I like this comment. As Nicholas Meyer has said, "Art is not a democracy. It's a dictatorship." And as the late movie critic Pauline Kael said about Mike Nichols' direction of The Graduate, "Nichols lets the audience direct him. This is demagoguery in the arts."

If a show is flawed, let's focus on the flaws, without using the royal we's (not to mention the strident tone and ad hominem attacks, as if to simplly disagree with someone is to insult the core of their existence) and the ad hominem attacks, disguised as "direct responses to arguments, head-on,") and thus implicitly putting ourselves on the side of Those With Taste and Culture and Superior Morality (if there is a common thread running through all Star Trek shows, it's that Those With Taste and Culture and Superior Morality do not facilitate discussion; they stifle it).

Let's focus on why we like what we like and why we don't like what we don't, without resorting to, "Well, it's not Star Trek." People make that assertion all of the time - some cleverly, some with fancy language, and some more brusquely, but in the end that is all it is. An assertion, not an argument. I could argue, for example, that "Shades of Gray," the last episode of season 2, showed as much contempt for Trek audiences as anything Trek has ever put out. But, to make that argument as opposed to just throwing the phrase out there, I'd need to, at a minimum:

1. Comment on the quality of the script and direction and production values of that episode;
2. Look for any comments those involved in the making of it have provided (more than once, the creators have been candid with us, a la Brannon Braga's criique of "Threshold");
3. Put my cards on the table about what I found insulting. I generally find clip shows to be indicative of lazy writing, whether or no they are the product of Writers' Strikes. I'd have to go further, though, and say why I found that PARTICULAR episode to be the product of lazy writing; and (among many others)
4. Make an assessment as to what entertaiment value, if any, the episode holds.

(Even these four factors involve, ultimately, expressions of opinions - just not on the most base and reductive level).

Assertions are hide-the-ball value judgments, and those making the assertion won't bring their biases to the fore. Assertions are crude expressions of belief - and beliefs, I try to remind myself, are beliefs precisely because they are not facts. Trying to make an argument involves trying to think before speaking. For me, that often isn't easy, but I've found that if I have something I want to share with others that I want these others to not dismiss out of hand, it's the only way to go.

Like you, I also was alive and cognizant when the criticisms of TNG and subsequent iterations were made. To determine whether these criticisms were different in both degree and kind than those leveled against DSC, one must first actually read the criticisms, or at least attempt to gain knowledge about them. Criticism against Trek not being "Star Trek" have been with us since time immemorial.

There is a wonderful book that was written in the '90s: "Star Trek : The Making of the Lost Series by Judith Reeves-Stevens and Garfield Reeves-Stevens." This book was a behind-the-scenes-look at the '70s "Star Trek Phase II" series that never was (but instead was ultimately was the basis for The Motion Picture). The book recounts how the producers' and Leonard Nimoy's decision to have Spock be featured on only 2 out of every 13 episodes (I believe that was the number) led to some pre-emptively dismissing the show as not "Star Trek."

Some things never change.
Set Bookmark
borusa
Sat, May 18, 2019, 4:03pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Face of the Enemy

I thought this was a pretty decent episode. Carolyn Seymour was great and the tension between the gestapo like Tal Shair and the regular military continues a tradition in televised Romulan society .
Next ►◄ PreviousPage 2 of 2,526
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2019 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.