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: 183 (Showing 26-50)

Set Bookmark
Wed, Jan 3, 2018, 10:04am (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S4: Babel One

About the technology that people say breaks canon:
-The fact that the Romulans have a ship that can disguise itself as other ships doesn't break canon. It's easy to see the Federation figuring out away of adjusting their sensors to see past the disguise sometime between this episode & TOS. (In the same way, a cloaking device from the TOS era might not fool a Federation ship from the TNG era; there is likely a constant technological race where both sides are improving to stay ahead of the other).
-The fact that the Romulans have remote control ships doesn't break cannon. As other's have said this technology may prove to be unreliable. It may also prove easy to jam. Block the signal, and they have no control over the ship. Again, this doesn't need to happen until the time of TOS to avoid breaking canon.

While I'm not going to argue over the defects in Starfleet's space suits, it was clever of the writers to make oxygen a problem for the landing party. They kept expecting to find an atmosphere somewhere. At the end of the episode they (and we) realize that there is a reason there's no atmosphere in the ship: the ship is unmanned.

I don't have much else to add to what Jammer & other's have said. It takes too long for the Enterprise crew to at least guess that there's another power at work here, but this is still a strong episode.
Set Bookmark
Mon, Dec 11, 2017, 6:14pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S6: In the Pale Moonlight

I don't think Garak was responsible for the loss of Betazed.

But, I do agree with what "Neil in LA" wrote above, that there is a good chance that Garak's plan was always the death of the Romulan ambassador; the alleged deaths of his informants may have only been a story Garak told Sisko to prepare him for the real plan. In this case the fall of Betazed would have been helpful to his plan, though he wouldn't have been the cause of it.
Set Bookmark
Mon, Dec 11, 2017, 6:01pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S4: Kir'Shara

This trilogy is certainly a high point of the series so far. There are lots of problems with it (Among them: the object was too easy to find---right down this tunnel!; Archer being able to beat up anybody at any time is boring; I would like to see a bit more restraint from some of the Vulcan actors). It probably would have been better to do this story over two different blocks of episodes (say, introduce the divisions within Vulcan in the first one and come back for the embassy bombing in the second). Still, for anyone who's a fan of the world-building of Star Trek, this is an entertaining three episodes.

I don't really have much to add that hasn't already been said by Jammer or by the commenters. There's lots I could nitpick, but Enterprise again does well when it sticks to diplomacy and world building (like DS9). I do have a few comments on what others have said:

-Remember, "reunification" doesn't have to happen peacefully. If Romulans want to conquer Vulcan, it's much easier if they're already at war with the Andorians. If they do want to reunify peacefully, they'll have more influence over a Vulcan at war.

-I do think Berman & Braga would have eventually done something to bring the Vulcans in line with the other Trek series. They introduced the idea of Andorians & Vulcans being close to war, but they also had Future Guy talk about a future with a Federation, which Archer would be instrumental in forming. So it was clear they were going to do something to change the status quo, though I'm guessing they hadn't even sketched out how they were going to do it.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Nov 26, 2017, 11:24am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S3: Civil Defense

At this point in time the Federation & the Cardassians have a treaty, but the Cardassians and the Bajorans do not. And the station is Bajoran property, managed by the Federation.

Remember the pilot episode: the Cardassians had smashed and looted much of the station before they left. They may have had some sort of withdrawal agreement with the Bajorans (perhaps the Bajorans agreed to cease hostilities for a certain period of time while the Cardassians left & the Cardassians agreed to not destroy the station), but I doubt they have any agreement for tech support.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Nov 22, 2017, 9:14pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S4: The Augments

I agree that the trilogy is held back by the lack of development of the augments as characters. Still, it was entertaining enough that I'd give this story a passing grade (with this episode being the weakest of the three).

Brent Spiner's acting is one of the best things about the trilogy. Even with the problems already mentioned (the character never teaches the augments, only preaches rules to them), Spiner is great all the way through.

Another thing this trilogy did well is world building. It references all sorts of stuff that were first mentioned elsewhere, but that's mostly for the good. We got a good feel for galactic civilization, with references to Orions, Klingons, Denobulans, and (of course) humans, and how all these races interact with each other. The props, sets, makeup, and special effects teams did a particularly good job with the Orion slave auction & the medical outpost.

Two references that I didn't think worked: The imitation of Khan on the floor of his ship at the end of WOK & Soong's reference to artificial people (both for reasons others have mentioned on this thread).

This is an early indication of how Enterprise would benefit by spreading stories over multiple episodes. Without that extra time we wouldn't get to explore Spiner's character, nor would we have the time to really investigate the different locales.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Oct 25, 2017, 10:22pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S4: Storm Front, Part II

I think I mentioned on another review that my appletv allows me to fast forward with the captions on; you can watch everything at 2X speed, and still follow the dialogue. I used that for almost all of "Storm Front Part I"; I only went to normal speed for one quiet moment between T'Pol & Trip on the bridge. That episode was just pointless cliche's with almost no character moments.

This episode was better...there were character moments (Jammer and everyone else noted "you've changed, captain."). The actors playing Vosk & Silik did a good job without a lot to work with. The plot got a bit more interesting, as there were apparently at least 3 sides in the TCW, instead of 2; and for a moment we might have considered that Vosk was telling the truth & he was the one who was actually on our side. That would have been a good twist: the evil-looking alien working with the Nazis turning out to be the humanity's savior. Alas, Archer didn't even consider it could be true & it turned out not to be.

Of course, the best part of this episode is that it ends the Temporal Cold War. Looking at the series a second time, it actually negatively affected fewer episodes than I remembered. But it was still a failure of an idea.

Despite the good parts, I was still fast-forwarding through a lot of this episode. I'll give "Part I" 1 star & I'll say this episode just barely makes it to 2 stars (if I went really fractional, I'd probably give it around 1.75 stars).
Set Bookmark
Wed, Oct 4, 2017, 9:47pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S3: Third Season Recap

A season that was definitely a step up from the previous two, though still below the standards of TOS, TNG, & DS9. I agree with Jammer (and most of the other commenters) that it got better as the season progressed. The overall plot had some good ideas, though they weren't always well developed. My scattered observations on the season:

I must begin by reiterating what everyone knows: the "test strike" was a silly idea to start the plot. The idea "Grumpy" states above (the attack was supposed to be the big attack, but failed) would have solved the problem.

Daniel from the future! & temporal war nonsense was of course a minus.

On the other hand the idea of the expanse was really good; the exploration of the spheres was one of the most interesting parts of the early season, and it would prove to be an important part of the conclusion. The zombie Vulcans in that one episode (which was tied into the Expanse) went on too long, though.

I'm ambivalent on the transdimensional aliens. They were intriguing, but not fleshed out enough to be really compelling. And of course, they were (sigh) involved in the time travel nonsense (as Jammer points out, we don't even know if they're involved in the temporal cold war, which we're supposed to be interested in).

On scifi gimmick episodes: I don't hate "Extinction", though I won't say it's good. "Twilight" & "E2" were OK, but we've seen those ideas done better. "Similtude" was good with some problems.

I think Shran's first appearance this season was one of the highlights of the season (and maybe the series). One of the other highlights (as Jammer points out), was Degra's development into a three dimensional character. What both have in common is that they're each complex, conflicted characters who bring up issues of diplomacy that aren't solved in one episode. This was stuff the Enterprise should have always been about. Expanding the role of the Andorians in this season (and an alliance/competition with the humans) would have improved the season. More complex Xindi characters besides Degra (with different aims & goals) also would have been a boost.

Unfortunately, Brannon & Braga were always more concerned with action than the diplomacy (or characterization) aspects of the series, and this season was no exception. Early in the season, a lot of that felt just as repetitive as previous seasons (with the notable exception of the episode that showed the characters finding the inside of a spheres). However, as the plot tightened later in the season, the action scenes started to become more compelling (though never spectacular). This was greatly aided by the continuity of the season. The ship was getting smashed & not fixed, crewmen were dying & people were still talking about it in subsequent episodes; stuff that happened in one episode had consequences that lasted. If only Voyager had been written like this!

Characterization still wasn't an emphasis for the series, but there was more of it here than in previous seasons (that continuity helps). To start with the negative, I never really bought Trip as the big anti-alien guy, even with the death of his sister. I also wasn't interested in the "throw guys out the airlock" Archer we saw early in the season.

The captain was interesting in "Shipment" (when he's the opposite of "throw guys out the airlock") & especially in "Damages" when he's understandably conflicted. Reed and Hoshi had some interesting (albeit small) character moments. Phlox was good as always, though I don't really think he changed this season. Mayweather was present, and they found more places to use him later in the season.

T'Pol had more development than anyone. While it wasn't all well done, I think it was mostly good. I would say the same thing about the Trip/T'Pol relationship. Lots of missteps on the writers (the characters have sex & then T'Pol downplays it), but overall I think it was positive (though very slow-moving).

The MACOs started out really cliche...but were OK at the end.

So we saw towards the end of the season the Reptilians could beam Hoshi off the bridge of the Enterprise. Why not beam everybody off the Enterprise? They wouldn't have been chased by the ship anymore.

And of course, the "cliffhanger"...sigh...

I see some people think this season went against Star Trek cannon. I would disagree. There's no reason why we would have had to have seen a reference to this in the other Star Trek series, and the Federation is big enough that I can buy not having seen a Xindi onscreen in those series. Still, it would be nice if a show like Discovery would stick one in...even if just in the background of a scene.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Oct 3, 2017, 9:00pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: The Vulcan Hello / Battle at the Binary Stars

"Peter G." (from...dozens of comments ago)

"Maybe, maybe not. With no diplomatic relations it's not clear how official the borders were between both sides. Don't forget that there's most likely no neutral zone yet, which would have to be hammered out in a treaty. Do you realize what 'borders' means in space where no treaty has drawn out the proper lines? It just means that the Federation leaves colonies and relays wherever they please, and that is now 'Federation territory.' It has no more legal truth to it in the eyes of the Klingons than that...The fact that you might foresee the Klingons having no interest in negotations wouldn't affect that mandate at all. The Federation still has to exhaustively pursue that route until it's no longer possible to."

Diplomacy is exhausted when one or both sides refuses to talk. That is the case here.

About borders, I agree there would have been all sorts of chances for disputes over the previous 100 years, and the Federation would surely have liked to discuss that at some point during that time. Yet the Klingons have refused to do so for 100 years. They haven't refused to fire at human settlements/ships/whatever (the first episode gave basically no information on the attack that killed Michael's family, other than it happened).

And space is big. The Klingons deliberately came into Federation space and still aren't talking.

"Peace through strength is a modern notion, and the Federation is supposed to be more advanced than that."

Peace through strength isn't a modern notion, but that's irrelevant to a show set in the future.

In every Star Trek show, strength has been essential for safeguarding Star Trek ideals. The Federation actually has been at war many times (although these wars usually happen prior to the filmed series). Even when at "peace", the Federation is constantly tested by other powers (Klingons, Romulans, Xindi, Cardassians, Borg, and Dominion are just the big names), and its military strength is always absolutely necessary to keep another war from breaking out. The writers sometimes take the time to have the characters say the Federation is stronger because of their ideals (citizen soldiers have more to fight for; it's easier to find allies; etc.), but it's always clear that without ships with phasers, torpedoes, and shields, those ideas would be lost.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Sep 27, 2017, 2:03pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: The Vulcan Hello / Battle at the Binary Stars

Peter G.:

If they were meeting the Klingons in neutral space I would agree. If the Klingons responded to hails to say "let's talk," I would agree. If this was an unknown species in Federation space (not the Klingons) I would agree.

But in 100 years the Klingons wouldn't have forgotten how to communicate with the Federation. In 100 year the Klingons wouldn't have forgotten the notion of borders, or that civilizations have a right to protect them.

The Klingons of 100 years before would have looked on another nation entering their space as an act of war. The current-day Klingons would have understood that they were declaring war by entering Federation territory, and their refusal to communicate was a refusal to initiate any sort of diplomacy that would change that impression.

If you're a multi-cultural idealist, you have to respect everything you know about Klingon culture & understand that they're starting a war. You'd also understand that they'd respect you if you shot first. Indeed, every moment you spend not defending your territory demonstrates to the Klingons that you are their inferior. If you're a pragmatist, you also understand you have a better chance of winning the confrontation if you shot first.

Everything known about the Klingons indicates the Federation would have more respect from them after a battle. That respect could actually lead to diplomacy in the future, which the Klingons were quite deliberately refusing at the time.

I don't think responding to an act of war as if it was an act of war violates any of Starfleets principles. It isn't an act of aggression (the act of aggression was the invasion of the Klingons). It isn't an act that shows a lack of understanding or respect for other cultures (quite the opposite). And it isn't an act that eliminates future diplomatic options.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Sep 27, 2017, 11:31am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: The Vulcan Hello / Battle at the Binary Stars

"Once again I think TOS was light years ahead of the other Treks, in that it both created the idea of the Prime Directive and also explored in great detail what it would mean to have a rule like this. "

I still haven't seen the second episode, but I have been somewhat following the comments. I just want to note that the Prime Directive has no application here. The Klingons are a technologically advanced, space-faring race, who have already established contact with humans and Vulcans.

The idea "We come in peace" for the Federation has no application either...they're in Federation territory! It's the Klingons who have invaded Federation space, and they're not saying "we come in peace". By the end of Archer's era it should be known that Klingons understand "shoot first & ask questions later" as a perfectly appropriate response to any incursion into sovereign territory. In fact, it should be known that any other response would be seen as a sign of weakness.

Once the Federation established that the Klingons were refusing to talk to them (the Federation way of resolving disputes), taking military action against them (the Klingon way of resolving disputes) is a defensible course of action. Ironically (to us), shooting at them actually shows respect for their culture.

Which isn't to say that I agree with her attempted takeover of the ship. But her recommendation to start shooting was reasonable.
Set Bookmark
Mon, Sep 25, 2017, 4:23pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: The Vulcan Hello / Battle at the Binary Stars

The first episode left me intrigued, although it didn't make me feel compelled to see more right away (a side note: I checked Amazon, and you can buy digital episodes of the first season of "The Good Fight", another CBS streaming exclusive, but apparently no Blu-rays or DVD's yet).

It mostly looked good, except for when they put flares in. No more lens flares! The aesthetic reminded me more of TMP than any other Star Trek design, which is a bit of a surprise.

This episode was mostly plot. There was little characterization beyond the main character, and I'm not sure how I feel about her yet. Oh, and Saru seems promising. The big problem in the episode seems to be the new Klingon makeup getting in the way of the actor's abilities to emote. It's possible that I'm mistaken, and the director simply wanted the Klingon dialogue to come off as a somber speech with little overt expression (a bit strange for Klingons). If not, that might be trouble when the Klingons recur in this series.

So the pilot is certainly promising enough to give the series a chance, but we still don't know how interesting the characters will be, nor whether the writers can tell new stories week after week.

Now, for a few more complaints. If the stories are good, these won't matter much, but I'm going to list them anyway:

-No reason yet as to why Sarak. If there isn't some key story point there, they would have been better off with a new Vulcan.
-I do like a lot of Fuller's stuff, but naming a woman Michael is just silly.
-I'd like to see a little more color differences in the uniforms. It doesn't need to dominate the uniform, but make the differences in field stand out. That's an iconic part of Star Trek.
-For that matter, the ship sets could use some color.
-This may seem like a strange complaint, but did the bridge seem too big to anyone else? This is something else that I might take back when I look at more episodes in the future, but I would think you'd want a tighter set so you could get some shots with basically the whole bridge crew in one frame.
Set Bookmark
Sat, Sep 23, 2017, 12:50pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: General Discussion

Just a note to anyone who's setting their DVRs to record the first episode on CBS: 60 minutes is supposed to start at 7:30 ET/6:30 CT, with Discovery starting 1 hour later. However, CBS is airing a doubleheader in football, so there's a good chance 60 minutes won't start on time. You'll want to add time to your DVRs.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Sep 17, 2017, 4:11pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Old Wounds

I did decide to watch the rebroadcast of this earlier this week.

Like others have said, I was struck by how little creativity was put into the universe. There's a difference between being inspired by Star Trek & pretty much just doing Star Trek with different labels. The latter is what we see here. If nothing changes, it will be difficult to take seriously as a drama. It will always be 2nd rate Star Trek, rather than 1st rate something new.

The plot here is straight-forward; not awful, but not original or memorable. None of the crewman are real characters yet, just a sentence or two description. They may become interesting characters later, but there's not really anything to go on yet. The most screentime goes to the captain, and the only thing we really know about him is that his wife cheated on him & he's not thought of as a good captain.

The show was somewhat stronger as a comedy (making it look so close to Star Trek helps the comedy). I did laugh several times, but there were still many jokes that didn't land.

I'd give it 1.5 - 2 stars. Unless the writers have some twist they will spring on us later (our "Federation" has a civil war!), I don't have high hopes for the future of this show. I will probably keep watching for awhile...but likely while fooling around on the computer.


"FarScape rocks.

But that is a different kind of humor than they are going for here."

Well...Farscape could be just as crude as this episode. They certainly weren't afraid of making fun of bodily functions. But their humor was always more organic than Orville's shown. Actually, in terms of tone, Farscape is probably a good comparison to Orville, in that both want to mix humor and drama. Farscape could do both really well. Orville's pilot episode doesn't give me hope that it will do either well. Farscape also seemed fresh and original, despite the fact that it uses many familiar science fiction elements*. Orville went out of its way not to seem original.

To be fair, Farscape took about half a season to start to click. But it always felt like it had more potential than this Orville episode shows.

*Farscape might not seem as fresh to people starting it now, as the first Guardians of the Galaxy film felt like a Farscape rip-off (I haven't seen the 2nd movie yet).


"Everything I watched with [Brannon Braga] at or close to the helm was terribad: Voyager, Enterprise, that Dinosaur thing a few years back, Salem..."

Looking over his credits, I was interested in "Threshold, "FlashForward" & "Terra Nova", to some extent. "Terra Nova" was probably the worst; I think the writers were told it had to be kid-friendly, and they felt that meant bland and unchallenging. I'm not predisposed to hate something Braga's involved in. However, if he's involved in a Star Trek clone, I would like to know what new inspiration he's had since he last worked on Enterprise.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Sep 12, 2017, 10:16pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S1: Broken Bow

"I realize that Tasha Yar leaving screwed up the gender balance on TNG, and I would take Worf over her any day. Thank goodness she left."

That's interesting. While I don't think the actress was great, I think the biggest problem with the character was she was only on in the first season, when the writing was poor. I wonder what she would have been like had she made it to the 3rd season, when the show started to be good. Yar as a character has much in common with Ro & Kira: the Federation outsider with a rough childhood who didn't fit in perfectly with Star Fleet ideals. I think she would have been a strong character once the better writing staffs took over.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Sep 12, 2017, 8:28pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: General Discussion

I'm tired of streaming shows that draw out one single story out to a pre-ordained 10 or 13 episode length, even though they only have enough material for 7 episodes or so.

If the new series has enough material to do thirteen 55 minute episodes, I'd be fine with that. Just don't do episodes where they just seem to be passing time.

I haven't gotten to the final season of Enterprise in my rewatch, but I know it improved by making several 2 & 3 part episodes that year. The writers didn't have to come up with 24 stories that year; they focused on developing some of the better ideas over multiple episodes.

If I was running a Star Trek show for a streaming service, I'd want to take full advantage of the lack of time constraints. If I had a story that went for 25 minutes, I'd make a 25 minute episode. If I had an story that went for 2 hours, I'd probably make a 2 hour episode, rather than divide it into 2 or 3 episodes. I'd start the season with a rough idea of how many minutes I wanted to film, not how many episodes.

Having them wildly different lengths would also make each episode feel like an event. I'd remove many "B" and "C" plots that don't have a lot to do with the main episode; if they are good ideas, give them their own smaller episode (or maybe do regular "day in the life" episodes that are basically a bunch of B & C plots strung together).

A lot of "science fiction gimmick" episodes that were tired in Voyager & Enterprise would have worked better if they were cut down to their bare bones without filler. As soon as the idea starts to run out of steam, come to your conclusion. Meanwhile, you could plan several episodes centered around diplomacy and other issues that could benefit from having the running time of a movie.
Set Bookmark
Mon, Sep 11, 2017, 3:33pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S1: Broken Bow

"Finally, TNG and VOY each had a 33% female main cast."

To be fair to TNG, the main characters at the beginning were 3 men, 3 women, 1 android, and 1 boy sidekick. Worf wasn't planned to be a central character. Of course, one of the women left in the first season, and Worf essentially took her place as a lead character. Bringing Ro on was probably an attempt to rectify that imbalance, but of course that actress didn't stick around either.
Set Bookmark
Fri, Sep 8, 2017, 6:38pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S3: Damage

A strong, well-plotted episode, with lots of good dialogue. They even made use of all the characters in the show!

Unfortunately, I would only rate the episode about 3 stars. The problem is that these characters have largely been 2-dimensional for 2.5 years, so it's hard to ever feel as strongly about them as you did about the characters in DS9 or TNG.

I disagree with those that say T'Pol's opposition to Archer was explained by her drug addiction. It was used to explain her emotional outburst (smashing the Captain's desk), but not her reasoned opposition. That said "Joseph S." is correct, her dialogue was written to refer both to Archer's actions & her own.
Set Bookmark
Sat, Sep 2, 2017, 11:00pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S5: For the Uniform

You sound like you wanted to see American Indians in Star Trek...which is fine. But that was never the allegory for the Maquis. The American Indians were in one episode that didn't even have the Maquis in it (the organization was formed afterwards). The writers took an opportunity when setting up the Maquis to do one episode with parallels to the American Indians. That didn't change what the Maquis were about.

The Star Trek writers didn't hide the inspiration for the Maquis...and it wasn't American Indians. The Maquis were named after French resistance fighters during World War II. If you don't know history, a peace treaty with Nazi Germany had given a large area of France to Germany, while the rest of France was given an government friendly to Germany. A resistance in France to this redrawing of the map sprung up...which was called the Maquis.

That is what the Maquis in Star Trek is about...that is what it was always about. Not about the French resistance movement in particular, but about the type of resistance movements that can spring up when borders are redrawn by governments. That is what pretty much every episode that featured the Maquis was about (and remember...the Maquis weren't in the American Indian episode of TNG).

The fact that Chakotay joined the Maquis doesn't change that. If Chakotay had been Brazilian it wouldn't have made the Maquis about Brazil. Torres being part of the Maquis didn't make the Maquis about Klingons.

If you want to be reminded of what the Maquis were originally about, you should rewatch their original appearance in the Star Trek Universe...which was in the Deep Space Nine episodes "Maquis" parts 1 & 2.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Aug 27, 2017, 12:34pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S5: For the Uniform

"I guess one of my other main issues is that the writers (over the years) forgot what the issue was originally about. Originally it was an (obvious) allegory for the forced relocation of the American Indians"

The theme of that TNG episode was about the forced relocation of the American Indians. At the end of the episode, they decide not to force their relocation, and that is the end of any meaningful parallel with American Indians.

With no relocations, the Maquis were about people on the boundaries of civilizations who suddenly found themselves under different rulers. If you're searching for historical parallels, you're better off looking at the "old world" of Europe, the Middle East, Africa, etc., where people living on the borders would find their home suddenly placed in a different nation without them having any say. If you've ever studies European history, you know that sort of thing happened regularly.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Aug 22, 2017, 6:25pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S2: The Maquis, Part I

"So this IS the first time in Star Trek that we ever meet the Maquis? "

I looked over some stuff at memory alpha to verify it:

TNG episode "Journey's End" aired 28 March 1994:
-Admiral Necheyev tells Picard they have a new Cardassian treaty & they need to move those "Native Americans" off their planet because it ended up on the Cardassian side of the new border. Violence breaks out...but ends with an agreement that the colonists will stay where they and accept Cardassian rule.
-This introduces the ideas necessary for the Maquis, but not the Maquis itself. Also, this was intended to be Chakotay's home planet, though that was never mentioned onscreen (according to memory alpha).

DS9 episode "Maquis part I" aired 24 April 1994:
-first actual appearance of the Maquis, an organized resistance to the new treaty.
-first mention of the badlands...they note a few ships have gone missing there.

TNG episode "Preemptive Strike" aired 16 May 1994:
-Ro is sent to infiltrate a Maquis cell; she joins the cell instead.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 10:30am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S2: The Maquis, Part I

--spoilers for the 2nd to last episode of TNG--

Ro on TNG was introduced as a Bajoran refugee, part of a group of Bajorans who had left their planet during the Cardassian occupation. She wouldn't join the Maquis until the second to last episode of TNG season 7. DS9 season 2 was airing at the same time as TNG season 7, so these DS9 episodes are several months before that. I'm pretty sure these DS9 episodes are the first mention of the Maquis in the Star Trek Universe.

Pillar was introducing the Maquis in both DS9 & TNG to prepare for Voyager, which was going to start the next year. I think I've read that Behr (who would take over DS9 in season 3) was annoyed that DS9 had to introduce the Maquis just to set up something for Voyager. Of course, DS9 would do way more with them than Voyager would (which pretty much forgot the whole idea after their pilot)
Set Bookmark
Sun, Aug 6, 2017, 7:50pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S3: Chosen Realm

This benefits from good acting from the guest star & somewhat clever writing detailing how the ship was taken over (organic explosives they didn't know to search for) & how it was taken back (aliens ignorance of the transporter). Despite that, it's an action plot we've seen before that didn't allow for much characterization from our characters. So it never really grabs the viewer.

And yes, religious differences do often come down to silliness over "9 days or 10".

Corey says: "the Sunni/Shia conflict has always spawned, not from religious doctrinal disputes, but issues of power, politics, resources and land. Religious mumbo jumbo comes after."

eehhh...of course the people in charge of each sect seek "power, politics, resources and land". That's true of pretty much every religious or governmental leader. Once two groups are divided, they naturally compete over all of those things.

But religious doctrinal issues are special monstrosities that leaders use to channel power to themselves, dehumanize their opponents, and make compromise extremely difficult. These doctrinal issues aren't just pushed by the top leaders, but by clerics at all levels of society, who have an incentive to continue to advance the correctness of their views. This is essential for clerics to maintain their own importance in society. This whole system is key in keeping the divisions permanent.
Set Bookmark
Sat, Aug 5, 2017, 6:57pm (UTC -5)
Re: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

So, I finally watched it a few weeks ago.

It's he first Star Wars movie since The Return of the Jedi that I would give a passing grade to (no, I don't think the Force Awakens was a good movie). I'd give it somewhere between 2.5 to 3 stars.

-As others have said, it's plot-driven. Only the droid felt developed as a character.

-I didn't have a problem with Tarkenton. That may be because I didn't know he was going to be in the movie when I started watching it (I probably knew at some point, but had forgotten it in the 8 months or so since the movie came out). I realized he had to be CGI as soon as he appeared onscreen, but I thought it was done well-enough. To echo nearly everyone else, Leia didn't look as accurate.

-I agree the ending doesn't line up well with the beginning of the first movie.

-Glad Disney allowed the to actually kill all the featured characters. It would have really felt hollow if they forced a happy ending for them.

-some of the fanservice was hollow. I agree with the commenter above who said Vader choking random lackey was tiresome...filmmakers doing this at every opportunity undermines the previous movie rather than building up the current one.

This could have been a classic with better character development. But the plot carries it along well enough that it gets a passing grade.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Jul 30, 2017, 6:15pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S3: Similitude

"The reason I dislike this episode is that I don't believe any ethical person would create a clone they know will have to die, in order to save someone"

Every time a human life is create people know it will die. I don't think lifespan is what makes a life worthwhile (a life that lasts 100 years isn't necessarily more worthwhile than one lasts 10 days).

As someone pointed out near the top of the thread: the decision to create this life is analogous to parents who have another child in order to provide a tissue donor for one of their other children. I understand people may feel uncomfortable about that, but as long as the parents will love the new child, I have no problems with it. Similarly, I have no problems with the initial decision to create the new life in this episode. Again, I must emphasize: quality of life is not determined by lifespan!!!!

If they would have stuck to that premise, this might have been a strong, poignant episode, as we could watch a human lifespan play out over a relative blink of an eye (would have been even better if they gave him a lifespan of a few months, and had his life play out over half a season). The idea didn't need a forced conflict.

Of course, they had to pile on all sorts of twists & turns: DNA memories*! Now the procedure will kill Sim! now maybe there's a procedure to make Sim live a "normal" lifespan!

I didn't dislike the result, although I agree with some of the problems others have stated. The biggest problem is that all the twists took away time to really absorb & dwell on the ideas or to give much characterization (with an idea that opened the door for a lot of characterization). I'd give the episode 3 stars.

*They could have easily gotten away with not using DNA magic. Just say that the symbiont had some small amount of telepathic powers that let Sim absorb some of Trip's memories. Telepathy is a magic that's been in Trek a long time!
Set Bookmark
Sat, Jul 8, 2017, 6:35pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S3: Rajiin

Elliot said:

"Isn't it convenient that Archer doesn't pay for the sex slave but still gets to take her back to his ship? For someone who frequently harps on the "have your cake and eat it too" contrivance in scripting, I'm surprised you didn't pick up on this point. All he had to do was get into a silly fight for which there are no consequences. I'm curious about what the writers were thinking; I mean, I'm all for liberating slaves from prostitution, but it's rather selective here AND the dialogue makes only a passing reference to "we don't believe people can own people" or whatever. "

The fact that the slave got to the ship without being purchased was a plot point. She had a mission to get to the ship, and she had to find a way even if she wasn't purchased.

That the Enterprise crew didn't go and free everyone is understandable. If they went in with weapons and freed everyone they weren't likely to get any business done at the port, nor anywhere else in the region. And they could possibly get a whole new set of enemies when they're already struggling with the Xindi. But if a woman frees herself and then asks for asylum (essentially what she did), they can't really turn her down. (Which doesn't mean they need to give her permission to wander the ship freely. Archer should have been weary of her).


On the episode itself: the main plot was tired, but not awful. Most of the rest of it was better than what Enterprise had been giving us. The spice merchant was fun and the T'Pol/Trip stuff was fine here. Overall, I'd give it a passing grade.
▲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.