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: 2,289 (Showing 26-50)

Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 3:16pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S3: The Q and the Grey

@ Elliott,

"In the absence of meaning, the contrivances leap to the front of our consciences and make the episode that much less enjoyable to watch."

That, and it's just not enjoyable to watch anyhow :)
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 9:09am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S3: The Q and the Grey

@ Elliott,

It may be where metaphor meets myth meets the parents, but it still has to mean something. It can's stand on its own two legs if the idea has no legs. The American Civil War is about as silly a metaphor for the Q as Nazi German was for the Hirogen. But at least in the latter case the silliness was a mere pretense to have a bunch of costumes and set pieces and have some fun. But in The Q and the Grey the silly pretense actually gets in the way of our understanding anything about the Q, and as evidenced from all the negative reactions to this episode, it not only happens to fail to be highly entertaining in its own right, but if fact undermines any respect or awe we could have for the Q. So while in theory I agree that a metaphoric reality could work so long as it's self-contained and workable (for example in Frame of Mind, which may or may not make sense but is really fun; or similarly with Phantasms). But here the metaphor is part of the problem.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 12:39pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: The Drumhead

@ Trent,

The quote you provided and your previous argument about laws just being arbitrary seems to be off-topic with what Omicron is saying. The Madison quote (and I am not Madison expert) seems to be addressing an issue that's been well known going back to Ancient Greece, which is that when politics is a power struggle what will happen in a *pure democracy* is that each power interest will just try to grab away from the others, creating instability. In the case Madison outlines, it would seem to be landowners at risk long-term because the natural instability of tenants 'voting out' their landlords through legislation favoring the tenants will cause an imbalance of power, especially if the two classes are not equal in numbers over time. This is actually pretty obvious, and doesn't really say much about whether laws are just arbitrary and should not be considered as important. You seem to be trying to argue that the laws (in this case, how the U.S. senate was constituted) are just another expression of self-interest, so why take them seriously. But if that's what you're saying then I think you're misunderstanding Madison, as he was point towards essentially a law of physics of how representative democracy would work long-term, and which methods may be useful in balancing the shifting tides in power so that people don't find themselves up-ended every four years and have everything taken away from them. This isn't some paper fantasy concocted by lawmakers, it's an actual fact that *no one* wants to have themselves voted out of relevance every four years. More broadly, most regular people don't want the daily sentiment to totally upend years of established business; sentiment which may pass quickly but while it's in vogue could do damage without any care for the future.

Linking this to The Drumhead, I think PIcard is actually the force of conservatism in the episode, or shall we say classical liberalism (which can have commonalities). He is the one upholding the cherished Federation values of being fair, decent, and honest; and he is the one deeply suspicious of a sudden movement looking to overturn the established understanding of how things on the Enterprise work. Could it be that there's a Romulan spy on the Enterprise? Maybe. But could it be that everything Picard thought was true may not be, and that everyone is under suspicion? Picard seems to say that, no, he is not going to accept a departure from the established order just because a strong faction (Satie, in this case) is clamoring for crackdowns and restructuring. Now we may well ask "what is Satie had been right? what is Picard was being naive and changes really were needed?" That's an important question to ask, but as with Madison, part of what needs addressing is which elements of the operation of the ship need to allow for change but without huge turmoil and strife. Picard might well have had to deal with a Romulan spy now and again, but the system he has in place - his command style, involving humanistic values and fairness - also serves as a stopgap against reckless security precautions. We frequently see Picard shoot down Worf's predictably aggressive security suggestions. It's good that they are part of the conversation, but they need to only be a part of it, not the brunt of it. With someone like Satie in command no one would ever feel secure about anything, and everyone would live in fear all the time. So Picard's 'laws' aren't just arbitrary or made-up to serve his agenda: they serve a real human interest and are based not just on self-serving pragmatism but also on serving as barriers to chaos and misery.

The real issue to me is how to put up barriers to chaos while also not calcifying into a stale order that enables corruption and can't change even when it's required. To the extent that the protests are about a corrupt hegemony in certain police quarters I think this is a valid objection. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater and invoking the Marxist notion that everything established must be overturned and is part of the corruption is IMO Satie's territory, where the only unchangeable truth is that everyone must go along with what she says. That's the equal and opposite of a stale and corrupt system, but potentially more damaging.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 2:31pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S3: The Q and the Grey

@ William B,

Yeah, I sort of know there's a "don't take it too literally!" aspect to this episode in general. But this is another way in which it falls apart: so much of what we see can't be taken literally (Q guns that humans can use? Q bullets they can dodge? Q mating with a human? An argument between gods that humans can actually understand - and that's even simplistically easy to solve when the Q are dullards and can't?) that nothing means anything. The Q/Janeway mating is right in the vein with the rest of this stuff, basically treating the actual given circumstances as an obstacle to the good ol' story they wanted to tell, so let's just leave the details to the side and tell a good yarn! Or should I say a good yawn.

Looking at Trek as myth works very well when the writer is that kind of writer and the story is that kind of story, this one isn't, and this one isn't. It doesn't work at myth because it tells us nothing about our nature or about the world, it's just a dumb series of illogical events.

And in Elliott's defense, while I am not generally into the analysis framework where we inspect any story against 2020 gender issues, I do think there is an issue here with Q appearing male and courting a human female. Elliott already took Issue with Odo/Kira for a similar reason, but at least there it could make sense because Odo had been imitating a male for so long that may have had some effect on him; and maybe by copying Dr. Mora he just sort of defaulted to male and left it that way as Odo the solid. But with Q - no, he is definitely not a male and until we would know more about the term gender can't even having meaning for us in terms of the Q. He's a being of some sort, is about all we can say about "him". So I do actually think there is a strike against this particular episode in being heteronormative just to have a dude/lady 'romance' on-screen even though the actual fact is that he's not a man and doesn't care that she's a woman. At least a joke about this would have been funny, like maybe (since Tuvok was an advocate in Death Wish) to proposition Tuvok first, and after a mere raised eyebrow by Tuvok that could shift immediately to Janeway. At least we'd get a nod towards Q could go either way to get the human DNA.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 10:33am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S3: The Q and the Grey

Hi Elliott,

You know, a large part of your review is description of the plot, and honestly your descriptions are misleading because reading them one might actually think what's going on in the episode makes a lick of sense. By tidying up the story in order to review it you actually ended up writing a clearer story than Kenneth Biller did. But some of the quotes you provided reminded me - to my horror - of the sheer stupidity involved in the making of thie episode.

When it comes to Q episodes having a vital message is icing. All Good Things hit a home run in the Q-message department but the episode was more than exciting enough even if that aspect of it had been less pronounced. Deja Q worked so well not just because it had a message about compassion or mercy, but because it took the situation at hand and gave us winning one-liner after one-liner, all while poking fun at its own premise. So basically a Q episode has to be either fun or smart, and this one is neither. I personally think Q-Pid is stupid but a lot of fun so I wouldn't put it in the same category as Q and the Grey, which is tepid and dumb. So while I see your point about getting sensible with the whole Q-mythos, at the same time if there's no substance brought to the table with this it's just taking on a pose of saying something, but with nothing to say. To me that feels worse than actually just doing a romp like Q-Pid, which in fairness to it had no pretense of being awe-inspiring.

On the topic of Death Wish, I had expressed in that thread that I always liked the episode even though I also thought it set the Q up to be ruined. After a recent series of posts in that thread I decided to have a bit of fun and watch Death Wish again a few weeks ago. To my surprise, I didn't really have a bit of fun at all, and in fact the episode is still sitting half-finished in my Netflix. It was kind of boring, really. So I suppose I must retract my previous position on this 'trilogy', which is that the arc for the Q in VOY does not work, *and* Death Wish was no fun anyhow, so it was really a waste in terms of the result. But on paper I agree with you that learning more about the Q 'race' would have been excellent. That they are Trelane-type deities that use tech to effect omnipotence wouldn't contradict what we saw in TNG, but it would show that even energy beings are not automatically omnipotent. There is the tendency to look at the Organians, or the dude from Transfiguration, and to assume 'oh well I guess they're a god now.' But I always preferred to think of it as an evolutionary ladder, and energy-body is the next level up from organic. But even so all that means is you've hit the next rung, without implying anything about how high up on the energy-being ladder you are (if that makes sense).

I wouldn't have minded learning that the Q are part of a larger energy-being community. I mean, how do they get along with the Organians, or with Jason Ironheart from Babylon 5? Anyhow, rationalizing some of their mystery into concrete statements of fact would be a risk no matter what the choices were, but these choices were brain-dead. An energy being mating with a human? What does that even mean? It's so incoherent you might as well have suggested that a human mate with an amoeba to get some more pseudopod action into our gene pool. I know you took issue with the Q being heteronormative, but on a sci-fi level I would interpret the male/female Q 'biology' as merely implying that two separate systems need to merge in order to create a third new one. That much is fine, as all it's saying is that particular conditions would have to be met to produce a new energy being that wasn't just a copy of a previous one. But trying to map that onto *human* male/female jumps the shark so badly that they may as well have suggested that since Janeway is "female" she could mate with a "male" HDMI cable. It's idiocy on the order of Threshold and Macrocosm. Ok, ok, I don't want to be mean, nothing is as dumb as Macrocosm.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 11:12am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: The Drumhead

@ Booming,

"the need to be right because of her insecurities."

On some level everyone is insecure so it's hard to argue that a person's problems may likely stem from insecurities. But in Satie's case I don't think the problem is that she's insecure; on the contrary her problem is that she's *too secure*. She is so sure she is correct, and so sure that she is superior, that anyone taking sides against her (and disagreement would count as taking sides) is essentially the devil. I suppose you could argue that someone so self-assured must deep down be un-self assured, and I guess that rabbit hole goes far down, and about which subconscious motives could be below other motives, and so on. But as far as we can see her problem is she doesn't even recognize that it's possible for someone to disagree with her and not be a traitor; no less the possibility that she's just plain wrong. It's this *certainty*, which borders on religious zealotry, that creates this all-or-nothing steamroller effect. Anyone that sure of anything is already probably losing touch.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 10:14am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: The Drumhead

I would like to draw a parallel between the discussion here and Admiral Satie's tactics. At first glance Satie is the diametric opposite of a BLM protester - she is 'punching down' from power, as it were; she's using authoritarian tactics to find supposed traitors; she will pick on someone for their race. BLM would seem to be against all these things, and on the surface that distinction holds. However more interesting than those surface details are the mentality behind them. Why does she do these things? How does she view others in the course of her crusade?

One thing we've seen here in this discussion in a very quick reduction to black vs white thinking: it's those 'on the other side' who are the problem. We want to paint wildly, describing disagreement as implying some kind of group membership with the enemy. Satie may have been in a position of entitled power in this episode, but fundamentally I think what's going on isn't that she's abusing power to maintain hegemony; I think she honestly believes the things she's saying, despite being (IMO) mistaken. What is more telling to me is that she is keen to see any sign of being different from her as a sign of treason. Simon Tarses is 1/4 Romulan (iirc) and that brands him as being 'one of them'. Yes, this can come off as racist; and yet I have a hard time believing she is actually racist in some generic way, since she no doubt works alongside various species and has no problem with them. Her problem with Simon would seem to be that he shows some signs of "maybe" being part of the wrong group, the group that is EVIL. Likewise, when she all but calls Picard a traitor, I don't think it's because she always disagreed with his politics or because he didn't think Simon was a Romulan agent; I think it was because he stood up to her and her 'moral' crusade. And there is, of course, nothing so pernicious as telling a moralizing crusader that you think they're wrong about something, that's a clear sign that you are Part of the Problem (TM).

Another interesting thing to note is her approach: Satie ultimately has the grace of a steamroller, feeling it justified and even laudable to publicly and crudely make a big show of getting stuff done. Throughout this process, if someone gets hurt or something doesn't check out, it's ok because the cause justifies it. This particular mentality can easily be seen to reflect on both sides of the BLM issue; on the one side "don't cry about small misdeeds when it's HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS on the table!" and on the other side "hey the police need to do their job, and that means breaking some eggs."

To me what Satie's character illustrates isn't so much that if you're an admiral you can abuse your power, and in fact the episode practically doesn't address the fact that it's an admiral doing all this. Rather the focus seems to be that when a person like her feels she has a righteous cause rooting out evildoers that she will feel entitled and emboldened to do anything she likes, and will defend it by saying it's to fight evil, to which most people (who are not Picard) will keep their heads down and feel they have to let it go on. We've seen this all too often in history, and it's not just tyrants and oligarchs who do it; it seems to be a recurrent ugly side of our nature. Arthur Miller's The Crucible is all about this sort of thing, and in that play it's not the powers that be who are responsible for the hysteria but rather the ordinary townsfolk.

Let'e try to heed this episode's message, that vilifying and smoking out 'the traitors' is probably a good way to divide people and create more strife than it purports to solve. Let's keep in mind that noticing someone may show signs of 'maybe' having something in common with 'the enemy' doesn't mean they should be lumped into some box like Simon was. Sure, he had some Romulan in him; for all we know he even had some sympathy for Romulans. But that didn't mean he was against the Federation or guilty of anything other than not being as pure of blood as Satie was. Nor should we consider those who do not agree or even show some sign of perhaps sympathizing with other points of view as being part of the enemy camp. Non-conformity has increasingly become intolerable to people, and this is not a TNG message.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 10:31am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: The Drumhead

@ Booming,

You are not completely in touch with the spread of common beliefs among protesters and BLM in particular if you think "defund the police" is a mis-statement of "reallocate funds appropriately". For some it means that, for others it means what it sounds like: no more funds for the police, and no more police (that entire infrastructure presumably to be replaced by something else).

As for fistfights, you also have to be utterly tone deaf to think that the main threat coming to someone dissenting at this point in time is a physical assault. There are plenty of other ways to ruin someone, and the tools of the trade seem to include being cancelled, fired, doxxed, ostracized, etc etc. Death threats are a thing endemic all over the place right now so that's not unique to this, but probably happens also.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 9:56am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: The Drumhead

@ Booming,

Let me help to explain one point Jason R is making (if I may):

"That sign really rattled you. A less emotional response seems appropriate."

It's only appropriate if the message is innocuous or benevolent.

But here is that Jason R said:

"You want to know why it's a threat? Because if saying nothing is "violent" then that means by saying nothing I am literally *attacking* someone."

You might want to ask why the sign said "silence is VIOLENCE" rather than something more agreeable like "silence keeps things the same" or "silence helps the wrong side." But no, it is 'violence'. You need to be tone deaf not to realize this type of phrasing is related to the language used on certain university campuses, where you hear talk of feeling "threatened" by something (e.g. a teacher stating a conservative opinion) and that this threat is reported as making the environment "unsafe", which results in a firing for 'endangering' the students. If you think the word "violence" in the poster is just an accident or a metaphor, you are mistaken; they mean it when they say they consider it as violence. I can see Jason R's POV to take that poster as basically meaning "either you're with us, or else whatever happens you to - you had it coming." And you do see semblances of that in both cancel culture and in internet mobbing/doxxing.

While I can see merit to both sides of the discussion on the protests and so forth, there's no need to play the motte and bailey game about plain language to try to say it means something even though it clearly wants you to understand it another way. These types of arguments tend to discredit even the good points the left makes, which is why they should dissociate themselves with these 'allies' asap.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 2:50pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: The Drumhead

@ Jonathan Swift,

Aw, come on man, you're losing your ambiguous edge with that last post. It came across as clearly incendiary and sarcastic, losing the charm and incongruity of your first, more interesting post. If I don't have to scratch my head figuring out what you're saying then what's the point?
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 12:08pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: The Drumhead

@ Jonathan Swift,

Funny enough I was just reading about Jonathan Swift the other day, and your post reads like Gulliver's Travels (i.e. a lampoon). But even more funny, around half of your post can read clearly as a lampoon of what you're saying, while the other half sounds like a bona fide statement that people would actually made unironically. Maybe you're just taking the piss out of reality itself, or in the words of John Carpenter - "THIS IS NOT REALITY!"
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 12:12pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S2: Paradise

@ Anonymous Texan,

Nice write-up, this encapsulates some thoughts I've had before. The one aspect of it that didn't occur to me, that Starfleet itself is the marriage between Alixus' ideals and the technological age, probably didn't because it's not really part of the episode's narrative. I agree that we can *find it* between the lines, but the writers definitely did not go there. The fact that you noticed the Starfleet guy was the last to give in is quite interesting, and if it's pointedly deliberate by the writers to say what you think they're saying, then I have to just wonder at why they were so inept as to not take even one moment to show just how much strength Starfleet can provide to people who need challenge in an age of luxury. That would be a huge Trek message to put out there, and probably hasn't been stated clearly in that way since TOS.

I've spent most of my time in the threat arguing against the plot being silly and so forth, but if I'm being honest about an objective appraisal I think that the sub-plot with Kira and Dax was pure wasted screen time that could have fleshed out the philosophical problem more. Alixus is definitely supposed to be objecting to something *real*, something that really does bother most people and that for some is intolerable. But the important issue she observes gets lost beneath her character, which when assassinated kills the point she's making too. The writers needed to have more separation between her and her belief; or better yet, wait a bit to start to make us worried about her. It would have been cool if we were actually quite supportive of her at first.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Sat, Aug 8, 2020, 1:01pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

@ Rahul,

"I think the key thing about STLD is that it needs to be understood as a parody primarily, though I don't think it was marketed as such -- at least that was not my expectation when I first started watching it. Strictly as a comedy, it does not work for me. When observed through this parody lens, it's better than a zero-star experience for me even when evaluating it like I would classic Trek, though that's where I was leaning after my first viewing."

The thing about parody is that to be one it would need to do some very particular things. Spoofing a genre, and in particular one show in a genre, requires some pointers towards actual details in the original that you're making fun of. A good example of a TNG parody - probably the gold standard in my book - was MAD Magazine's TNG special back when TNG S1 was on the air. They include several vignettes making fun of TNG, including a funny segment lampooning Justice where a monster is eating the crew and Picard says that they can't interfere with its local customs and so have to let it continue. Not just anything silly or stupid can be parody, it has to actually parody *something*. Just doing anti-Trek in the style of South Park isn't a parody or a spoof all by itself; the content must be pointed. Otherwise it's just a zany childrens' version of the show, not while I would call a parody making mock of the actual content.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Thu, Aug 6, 2020, 1:22pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: Hero Worship

Well I'll disagree with Jammer on this one, but I do maintain that we really need to get away from seeing this as a tech plot for it to work. Hero Worship does the two quintessential TNG things that work so well: 1) Has a story focused on Data, and 2) tells a 'tech plot' that is actually about character on a meta level. Booby Trap is an example of this same thing, a character-driven story where the tech plot tells us about the person's character. In Booby Trap the issue was Geordi as he relates to people, and how the technology gets him stuck. Here the tech plot is about how raising the shields (iirc) is what's causing the problem, and how counter-intuitively one needs to lower the shields to protect oneself from the crisis. That maps on Timothy's trauma, where eventually the shields must be lowered in order to face his problem. It makes sense to raise them initially, but after some time and reasoning is applied, must be lowered again lest the increasing shield power fuel your own destruction. I find this tidy and efficient as a tech plot, but works nicely with Timothy's meta-narrative.

The one sticking point I can sympathize with is the reliance on a young guest star for any TV series - a risk at the best of times. In this case because he was tethered to Spiner for most of it I think that they were able to work with each other nicely. If it was more of an Imaginary Friend type episode it would have suffered far more for it, trying to have multiple scenes only with the child.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Thu, Aug 6, 2020, 12:07pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: Hero Worship

@ Booming,

"I saw it a as a psychosis. That the kid actually believes to be an android. I guess the borders between psychosis and very elevated make believe are fuzzy."

I think it might be more accurate to say that in regards to a TV show like TNG, which combines some degree of verisimilitude with some degree of meta-theme or mythical content, you need to pick your axis of examination before getting too literal about what is being portrayed on-screen. If the show is giving us a 'mythical' case of hero-worship, contrasting the desire to be human with the desire to be emotionless after a trauma, then what we have is an allegorical tale about different aspects of what we'd wish in different circumstances. If you wanted to look at it as, say, hard sci-fi, then you'd want the tech to make sense; and if you wanted to look at it as a realistic portrayal of trauma management, then you'd want the details to be accurate and the therapy to be sensible.

It sounds to me like you want to read the episode literally, that this is a portrayal of trauma and how it's being handled. Ok, if we're going down that road then you need to really stick to what's on-screen and not add anything. If this is meant to be a literal portrayal of psychosis (notwithstanding Omicron's opinion that this actually could be realistic as portrayed) then we would expect a delusional or psychotic person to be treated *for that*. You don't handle a schizophrenic person as if he's just depressed or upset, for example. If you are looking for signs of delusion or other psychosis then I would expect the therapy to match that in some way, shape, or form. This may be the realm of a therapist, but it strikes me as being unreasonable also to suppose this is an actually delusional or psychotic person who 'gets over it' in a few days of playing at being an android. Does a delusion go away that easily? I don't know, honestly, but supposing the literal content on-screen to be a bona fide delusion seems like quite a stretch to me.

I know your response seems to be something to the effect that the therapy doesn't match psychosis situation because it's bad therapy; but this seems a bit circular to me. It should be more likely to conclude that it doesn't match the therapy for a psychosis because it isn't a psychosis. And that's if we're being literal. I think this incongruity seems even more strongly to suggest that we shouldn't be going for a literalist interpretation of the episode. You may note that people with an interest or specialty will often tend to stick its nose into matters that don't relate to it; for instance someone in real estate will watch Seinfeld's first season and will want to criticize how Costanza is portrayed as a realtor, notwithstanding the fact that the show isn't about realty and doesn't even take him seriously as a realtor, even though it does contain scenes of him showing off homes. And of course we have plenty of shows with courtroom episodes where the lawyer in the room will boast that they got XYZ wrong, even though narratively it's beside the point. It's at least worth asking yourself whether you're doing that here.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Wed, Aug 5, 2020, 10:37am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: Hero Worship

@ Booming,

Since there is no sign here of a psychosis I'm not sure that any of that applies. It is never stated that Timothy is having an actual delusion that he is an android, nor is any emotional content in the episode indicative of a psychotic break. He's just hiding behind roleplay and imitating his hero, you know, just like the title of the episode says. It's not called hero psychosis, it's called hero worship. So no, it's not dangerous to allow him to explore being calm and at peace while he gives himself time to come to terms with what's happened. It's also not bad to let him develop a bond with someone he trusts (Data) so that he doesn't have to live the trauma alone.

It's a very nice episode, and I agree it's typically underrated. This is one of the 'watch anytime' ones.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 1:46pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: Darmok

Upon reflection, this episode ages well, it's even prophetic:

https://i.imgur.com/c2meXJO.gifv
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 1:20pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S6: The Reckoning

@ Booming.

"Yeah but this episode stands for a lot of the bad stuff DS9 started, like GOOD vs EVIIIIIL religious stuff."

I know this is a new flavor of storytelling even for DS9, but I have to say I think despite what some accuse DS9 of, Trek always was (until recently) a good vs evil show. The Federation was good, full stop, and humanity was living in an enlightened future, full stop. Any challenging of the Federation by foreign powers, be it Romulan, Dominion, Klingon at times, bottom line is they are wrong and Federation are the good guys. That Sisko should end up aligned with good guy wormhole aliens doesn't strike me as being off-brand, other than they're really Vorlon energy-beings. But I think Trek has always been a sort of retooled Western, cowboys vs Indians, where the heroes are not just protagonists but also morally and culturally superior. That's the franchise. Contrary to the opinions of some, I don't think DS9 changed that a jot. It's the new series that would love to portray the Federation as the bad guys, which makes them contemporary rather than progressive.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Thu, Jul 23, 2020, 10:18am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S4: The Way of the Warrior

I don't normally post links, but I thought this stupid s***-post was funny:

https://i.imgur.com/1bbnWCH.gifv
Set Bookmark
Peter Swinkels
Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 3:16am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

A new Star Trek cartoon for the first time in over 40 years? Interesting. A third season for Star Trek Discovery? I gave up on that garbage pretending to be Star Trek related after season two and thought it had been canceled.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Mon, Jul 20, 2020, 10:19am (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S1: Breaking the Ice

@ Jason R,

Heck, we can go even further than that. If attraction is based on things like pheromones, DNA markers, biochemistry, and other such things (as data seems to suggest) then it makes complete sense that Vulcans would 'have it down to a science'. With enough data it might be completely doable to predict based on behavioral and biochemical data which person is a good match for you. And if experts can do that better that you can, you'd be most pleased for the harsh difficulties of the dating game to be taken away. So forget Vulcans, I bet you the vast majority of *humans* would opt in for matchmaking if the result was a better matched partner than they could find themselves. For a logical people it would be a no-brainer.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Fri, Jul 17, 2020, 6:47pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S2: The Emissary

@ Mr Peepers,

Worf is a full Klingon, he's just an orphan raised by humans.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 10:43am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S3: Yesterday's Enterprise

Maybe there's some kind of Nietzsche 101 going on in that argument; master vs slave morality. Except for one thing: slave morality in that sense is about taking a bad thing that you can't change and pretending it's good because you can't change it. But that's not what's happening here: Enterprise C had a decision to make and chose what they saw as the best future for the Federation. That is not a 'slave' role, and any idea that sacrificing yourself makes you some kind of slave has the notion of leadership backwards. Being in charge is supposed to mean that *you* are the one who has to take responsibility for those under you. Sacrifice to protect your people is the sign of a leader; it's the slave's move to let your own people go to the wolves and save only yourself (PS - I wouldn't actually use that term, but in context I'm retaining it to make a point).
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Thu, Jul 9, 2020, 1:26am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: Brothers

@ james04,

"If Reg Barclay, or any other member of the crew, had done what Data did, they would have been thrown off the Enterprise & out of Starfleet"

Except for the fact that Reg Barclay *does* do almost exactly what Data did in The Nth Degree...and they don't throw him out.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Wed, Jul 8, 2020, 2:14pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S7: 'Til Death Do Us Part

@ Dave in MN,

"They should've killed off the symbiote and not bothered introducing a whole new main cast character this late in the game. What a waste."

Problem is if you do that Benjamin is lacking a significant relationship on the show other than Kasidy. Dax is his main 'friend' in the cast, and without her his scenes are relegated to professional briefings or else family scenes, which is a bit limiting.
▲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.