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: 1,795 (Showing 26-50)

Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 11:41am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S3: Warlord

@ Elliott,

"I don't object to any of this, but there are no conversations between them that spell out the nature of their relationship or how it's changing; we are expected to piece it together."

I think this is primarily because there is no ongoing arc or oversight here in terms of "where they are in their relationship." I do not believe they were monitoring the state of that relationship, as it was more likely each writer just writing whatever they wanted. There's no scene to tell us what's going on because nothing is going on. That's quite different between an actual couple going through a breakup that will be sustained on the series. In TNG they even had a major crisis for O'Brien and Keiko as *secondary characters* and they fleshed this out a lot for us. I mean, it was framed somewhat comically because of the episode, but we definitely needed to know whether they stood with each other.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Sun, Jun 14, 2020, 7:19pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: The Wounded

@ The_Man,

You disagree with what?
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Sun, Jun 14, 2020, 10:46am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S4: The Visitor

@ Elliott,

"If you can find an example of a single left wing politician in western democracies even hinting at something akin to totalitarian policies, I could at least understand your fear."

Since we were just discussing 1984 in another thread this can count as being about Trek: one common misconception about the novel is that it's the government forcing this system on everyone against their will. It doesn't occur to people that it might have been the reverse: the citizens forcing it into the government. De Tocqueville argued in the 1830's (admittedly, prior to WWII) that law and policy invariably follow from the popular culture, and not the other way around, despite occasional appearances to the contrary.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Sun, Jun 14, 2020, 10:43am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: The Wounded

@ James G,

"Considering what Maxwell has done and the unauthorised carnage he's caused, Picard seems a bit too quick to defend him to Gul Macet at the episode's conclusion, and too dismissive of Macet's disdain. If anything, Macet is extremely restrained in the circumstances."

Macet could have done more fake posturing, but by the end he and Picard both knew that the Cardassians were covertly arming up for a new offensive in violation of the treaty. The reason Captain Maxwell is received with such honor is that it's pretty clear he was 100% correct in his assessment of the situation. The problem was that he had to (a) violate treaty, and (b) attack ships outside of a time of war, in order to prove he was right. The letter of the law is exactly what the Cardassians were using to get the upper hand, and Maxwell did descend into ignoring it as well to catch them. But the bottom line for Picard is that the law must be upheld.

To me the major contention of the episode is that law and honoring the treaty comes first, over and above proving that the Cardassians were violating it and preparing for war. Maxwell was a pragmatist, while Picard and idealist who favored working within the system. I'm not quite sure it's clear-cut that Picard is 'right' but his side certainly gets the floor for most of the episode. I've never felt that Maxwell was a villain, just a guy who never really believed the war was over. It's worth asking whether that was a fault or just realistic understanding.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 3:25pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S4: The Visitor

Elliott,

Rahul is referring to the tactic of doing or saying something offensive, and when people naturally react badly to that calling them out for being the thing they're accusing you of. The form would be something like:

Person A: XYZ
Person B: XYZ is outragous, how could you say that!
Person A: Now you are behaving like XYZ, just as I said!

So self-fulfilling prophecy, aka trigger the very response you will then accuse.

The other, slightly modified form is:

Person A: XYZ is guilty
Person B: That is outreageous!
Person A: That proves you're part of the problem.

So the kafka trap, where you are guilty if you don't object, and guilty if you do.

Final form is:

Person A: XYZ is guilty
Person B: Are you really saying that?!
Person A: What? No, I didn't mean that at all (when they clearly did).

This is the chicken-hawk scenario.

Now Rahul, I don't think Elliott has been doing any of these things. He does make some claims that could be offensive to some people, but he always stands by them and will defend them with argument. That's not the behavior you're describing, which is that of evasive trickery in order to win face in public and brainwash people. I don't disagree that some of Elliott's comments over the years are...well, aggressive to my sensibilities, but I try to discipline myself to engage with the content and see where we might see eye to eye on Trek terms. Lashing out doesn't help, I think.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 1:51pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S4: The Visitor

Rahul's point is, to whit, not an attack on Elliott but rather a statement on the scenario of someone making a 'striking' claim, stating it as a moral fact, which then of course triggers responses from parties that find the claim extreme. To the extent that he was identifying this as one of those scenarios, he is almost certainly correct, putting aside entirely the validity of Elliott's opinion (which I am personally happy to debate). I'm reminded of an early version of what Rahul describes, which was the famous "if you dress like Pocahontas for Halloween you are a racist" type posts seen almost ten years ago. People would post this on social media, of course triggering a firestorm, and this can easily degenerate into "you're a racist" "no, YOU'RE the racist!" Obvious we want to do better here, and Elliott, to the extent that your post was making an analytical point, which is excellent to do, I would only caution you that offering an explanation of how American conservatives are by definition close to being Nazis is throwing fuel into the fire in terms of the Trek discussion being washed away and turning into a political turf war. And if someone, right or wrong, finds a post ugly, maybe that's something to explore *in a Trek discussion*. You did ask him what he meant so I think that's fine, maybe he'll answer. But I think you got conned a bit into joining the fray of a bad news sidetrack into politics.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 11:25am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S4: The Visitor

"rahul's post had only one aim: silence elliot."

Ridiculous. Rahul has never done anything like that here. Motive speculation is already bad, but this is a dubious speculation on top of it.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 4:13pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S4: The Visitor

I can't read Brook's mind, but it seems pretty evident to me how it might be important to a black person in Hollywood to make a stand about "if you're gonna hire mostly white guest stars then fine, but I'm drawing a line." The uproar about mostly-white casting reached a fever pitch even within the last couple of years, so if that was what Brooks was on about then it's not only not racist but ahead of its time in the business. I could see Brooks, or others like him, finding it galling to have a white female love interest yet again, 'Snow White syndrome'.

Now where I think this grates in Elliott is perhaps badly indicated in his review (sorry Elliott). His complaints about DS9 tend to be based on anachronistic elements pushed into the show that portray a more modern sensibility rather than a Trek one such as shown on TNG or VOY. Elliott has remarked on this in the 'shades of grey' approach to morality, which is a modern area of interest but not something TNG at any rate was interested in; he's remarked on it in his recent review of The Ascent in scenes which he feels are barely different from what we'd see in a modern non-space show; and he's remarked on it in even character details such as (especially) Sisko's character which he feels is out of tone for what Trek should portray. So I'm doing a little 'mind reading' here, but I don't think this is about black-black pairing, so much perhaps as a modern social movement being pasted into the Trek universe. It makes *complete* sense to fight for more diverse casting *now*, and in-universe doesn't make sense in Trek to have contemporary things shown as special, when they shouldn't be special there, and in fact in the future the converse would be the case (i.e. that no special concern would be present for color or race). Elliott, is my read on this correct?

If so, then I'll take a page from Trent's line of argument, that fundamentally Trek has to be seen as allegorical and even mythic, and to a certain extent not every single literal detail will map on a 1-to-1 basis smoothly. Some of what we need to show on Trek will necessarily be a bit illogical in the future sense, in order to hammer home what it means to us now, and I think we have to accept that. I'll give an example from a typically praised episode:

In Rejoined we have an allegory towards, presumably, same-sex relationships and the taboo involved. I suppose mixed in there somewhere might be the issue of having a man's memories/feelings in a woman's body, but that's not front and center in any case. Now IRL we know what they're doing, and we applaud it, let's say. But in-universe it doesn't really make sense, for a few reasons. For one thing, making it woman-woman was apparently a 'coincidence' because the re-association rules would apply to man/woman as well, so it's surely deliberate that they showed it as man/woman and portrayed that as a public scandal. Also, the manner in which Dax goes through the arguments (with Sisko for example) isn't really sensible in its own right within the context of Trill society. You're telling me we should applaud someone seeing to it that Dax never has any more hosts? Sounds pretty selfish to me, and it's not like she was crusading against this Trill rule before. It's only now that she's feeling the heat that she wants to suddenly buck convention and doom her symbiont. But whatever, that's not really what the episode is intended to be about, I personally never focus on those details because I know what they're after. But that requires some active 'forgetting' on my part, and to ignore how in-universe the logic isn't quite there. So modern need to portray this issue does not map into the DS9 universe perfectly, but it doesn't matter because this is allegory and high art about life. It's not kitchen drama attempting to portray realism in the 24th century. These are adventures, not documentaries.

And I think the same needs to apply to the black casting issue. Brooks wants to fight for more equitable casting, more power to him. As the star we might even suggest it's responsibility to set an example, and I believe he felt that was the case. You have to be a sort of leader when you're the star, and too many celebrities aren't. So to me calling this out as racists isn't offensive, but it is weird from a progressive standpoint. Artistically the material does give way a bit to make room for it, but barely enough to be relevant unless one wants to make a federal case out of it.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 11:29am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S4: The Visitor

I also had taken it as a given that Brooks requested to have black love interests on the show. Assuming this is so, there's nothing to see here on the front of his character. For Jake we don't know whether it was spillover from Brooks' influence (he was like a father to Lofton), whether it came from Lofton himself, or from the producers. Arguments on this front based on speculation seem spurious to me since we don't know.

Now as Elliott and Jason R point out, it's probably not a *coincidence* that the pairing here was made as it was. But that alone says nothing; all it says is the show wasn't color blind. The kneejerk response is to call racism, because hey, why not, it's a non-falsifiable charge that makes a vague accusation while not quite actually saying anything specific. Except for one thing: the entire color blind vs not color blind debate isn't even much of a debate these days: most people calling for a color blind politics or social landscape would themselves be called racists in the present climate in the States. I'm not taking a position on this (certainly not here), but intend only to point out that it seems to be treading on dangerous ground to look at two black actors playing a scene and to object that they cast a black person. In Hollywood. I don't care whether there is a chance it was based on fearful optics, which I would agree would be unfortunate, but in and of itself the notion of saying "the role given to that black actress should have gone to a white lady" is over the line by any liberal standard these days. Now we could perhaps infer that Elliott means it could have been anyone at all other than a black person - for instance Jake could have had an Asian wife. And actually that particular argument (if he were making it) would be reasonable because the battle is always black vs white and no one thinks to include other ethnicities. DS9 and TNG both lacked Asian-descent bridge crew, although Keiko was on both in a smaller recurring role, so there is something to be said for that if that's the argument. I'm re-watching Heroes right now (no criticisms!) and it always strikes me how incredibly diverse this show was, even to the point of being happy to employ subtitles for a significant potion of the storylines.

But I guess to the extent that Michael seems to have been focusing on an objection to casting a black person in a role on a TV show, this is not a trivial issue to be swept aside. Yes, it might have been "interesting" to have a mixed relationship. Of course there are already some those on Trek and on DS9 in particular so it's not like a mixed relationship was banned or something. But put aside the coulda been, and you're left with two black actors on camera and someone objecting to that. I can see how that would give someone ideas. I typically try to avoid engaging on points like that but if we wanted to give benefit of doubt to Michael perhaps this is the basis of the complaint.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Mon, Jun 8, 2020, 10:43am (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S3: The Savage Curtain

@ William B,

I agree, but that's also because g*** was always an insulting slur, whereas negro was at some points used by all concerned as simply the correct term to refer to black people. So g*** is more similar to the N-word in this sense. Not sure if the writers really wanted negress to be jarring, or if they just wanted an out-of-date reference to seeing each other according to color. I think it was the latter, and that it was supposed to mean Lincoln saw her - in a positive way - as a black woman, whereas in the 23rd century your first reaction to seeing a black person wouldn't be "oh you're black!" His apology may make it sound like he realized he said something dirty, but maybe it's just that he himself is a bit confused about the era, having the knowledge of a 19th century guy but also being quite aware that he's been summoned to participate in a 23rd century game.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Mon, Jun 8, 2020, 9:47am (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S3: The Savage Curtain

It seems pretty clear to me they included that line just to provide the opportunity to say something about how racism is gone in the future. They used someone from the civil war to make that point, and someone with a reputation for trying to help the black population. So it ends up being rather apt. while not risking offending us because we do know that Lincoln was still from an era with a different way of talking. I don't know that 1960's accepted terms is necessarily the arbiter, but rather that they intended a civil-war era mentality that was forwarding-thinking to meet the result of his ambitions, far in the future. I suppose something similar would have been a phantom Ghandi meeting up with futuristic pacifists.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Sat, Jun 6, 2020, 11:11am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Chain of Command, Part II

@ Focksbot,

"First and foremost, it's a weaker rip-off of the same scene in '1984', but loses much from there being no point to the torture. Picard knows nothing worth extracting, and Madred is a weak man acting out a power fantasy - it says nothing about the effectiveness or otherwise of the Cardassian state, or of any particular ideology."

I think the homage to 1984 in this episode is more or less fine, as there is no information to extract from Winston either. The point of the torture is to make him betray that which he cares for the most, and in so doing turn him against himself. It's to make him accept doublethink and to love Big Brother. In Chain of Command that main drive of Madred's tortures seems to be to make Picard respect him and his culture, which is perhaps a bit weaker than trying to make him love it, but the main drive is the same: breaking someone towards an ideological goal. The Central Command may have wanted the defense information but I don't think that was Madred's primary interest. He was at odds with the Central Command on that, as we could see in the final scenes.

And there's another parallel too, which is that they offer to let Picard go in exchange for torturing Beverly. So far Picard refuses, but I assume that later on the idea is that he would relent and tell them to take her instead. Mercifully we don't see that happen, but I don't think that's a flaw, all it means is this isn't a cynical and remorseless show and they gave us a different plot (i.e. that the interrogation is ended early due to exterior factors).
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 11:35pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: Galaxy's Child

@ Mr Peepers,

You might be thinking of pre-fab programs, which we tended to see more on VOY like 'holo-novels', or on DS9 with the James Bond adventures. On TNG Worf's calisthenics are probably like this too. But there are plenty of programs that "save and end" and you resume it where you left off. Most Trek examples of holodeck use are the latter type, where you have an ongoing story that you can pause when you have to go back on duty or go to sleep or whatever. A technical or laboratory use of the holodeck would be especially useful to continue where you left off, and completely useless if you had to restart it every time. Why have to retread all the ground you already covered every time you turn on the program?

One example that comes to mind that may be a bit of both is Vic's program in DS9, where it does seem to be a long-form holo-novel type situation, but it's so long that you do save and end when you leave and this could go on maybe for years. I don't know what happens when that program 'ends', or if there is a natural end to it.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 1:53pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S3: Future's End, Part II

@ Elliott,

I guess what I'm saying about PT is that maybe it's not really interested in discussing systemic solutions, but rather the phenomenon of, as you say, filtering all these issue through our own lenses. Sisko sees it as a historically important event, someone else as a lesson in class; etc. Whereas the facts are that it wasn't "an event" at all but just different people in different situations, all living their lives. Or at least that's what I think the point of the episode was, hence its title "Past Tense", which I think is itself a way of categorizing something as "this happened" whereas the reality is infinitely more complex.

@ William B,

I would have loved for the "20th century hero concept" Paris to be prominent on VOY. I tend to agree he was supposed to be Han Solo or something based on character bible, but he comes off in person as more stolid than even Janeway is. So while a 'Paris bridges to the 20th CE' theme here would have been awesome, I never really saw that congeal on screen, like, "oh, I can see now why in a different era Paris could be seen as a great man." Almost like a more friendly Khan, a man out of time and place. Only trouble is, by this point in the series Tom has been domesticated and neutralized, so that spice wasn't really available anymore to go into this soup.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 12:16pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S3: Future's End, Part II

Thanks for the review, Elliott.

This may be one of the rare times I actually thought a VOY episode more fun than you did. I haven't actually seen it in quite a while, but I remember finding it enjoyable even when it first aired. Back then a little silly fun was still ok, in an era where Back to the Future didn't really have to make sense to be awesome. Your criticisms are probably well-placed, especially seeing as how I don't seem to bother re-watching it, but anyhow it's one of the more memorable ones somehow even though it's not great.

Some point about this:

"PT was obviously a much more serious story, with a serious tone, and a serious message. But it failed to actually confront the implications of the sociopolitical problems it wanted to tackle. The best the episode could suggest as a solution to systemic socioeconomic inequality was for people to “care more.”"

Actually one thing I like about PT is that even though its approach towards the topic is heavy handed "Look at the suffering!" type stuff, the takeaway is actually more subtle than it would seem. The episode does actually propose a 'solution', but it's not a systemic one: the actually plot involves Sisko and Bashir personally getting to know various people on different sides of the problem within the sanctuary, and Dax gets to know someone 'in the system' who sits on high. Trek does seem to say that these crises are in a sense historical inevitabilities, but in the playing out of the 2-parter the big takeaway is that until you know the individuals it's 'just a history lesson', and likewise for the people of the time if you don't know them then it's 'just a news report'. Of course it's easy to dismiss current events if you just think of them as informational news items. And at the moment this is possibly more relevant than even when that episode aired. It's also relevant in terms of dehumanizing people when interacting with them online; oh you're "just a Democrat/Republican" and you can neatly dismiss them into a 'group'. So PT seems to be telling us that we will certainly never get over these issues if we think of people as groups to be categorized rather than individuals with problems. That's a strong message and certainly deeper than "care more". It's not a question about caring more, it's about caring *correctly*. It's an equal but opposite problem to care a lot about some unspecified categorization of people but without knowing the individuals involved.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 11:41am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: The Nth Degree

@ Eric,

I think we have to assume they're in that category of super-advanced alien species, maybe in the ballpark of the Metrons or the Organians. It's not clear whether they're still corporeal or not, but for some reason they don't like to leave their home system.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 10:15am (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S3: Day of the Dove

@ Chrome,

Having watched this ep for years and years, I never got the impression that the intent was to show that these were their secret hatreds coming to the surface. It always looked to me like the entity was actually creating the feelings in them, but which they would attribute to themselves. If we're going to call the episode poignant, it would be especially so if the premise is that a third party fills people with hatred towards each other, and they think these feelings are their own.

That said, if we did want to read the episode as showing the feelings coming on some level from the crew, we could still suggest it's the repressed hatreds in our genes and human history coming out; maybe akin to what happens in All Our Yesterdays to Spock. It doesn't necessarily have to mean that Chekhov and Bones have personally felt those on some level in their own lives.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Thu, Jun 4, 2020, 2:29pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: Ethics

@ Jason R,,

Picard does bring up the argument, which is what put in my head that this should have been a far more significant theme in the episode. The way the episode it titles, and the way most of it is spent, we're given a lot of air time around two key issues:

1) Whether being crippled is as terrible for Worf as it sounds.
2) Whether Russel was violating medical ethics in using untested procedures.

(1) sort of gets addressed by way of showing us that for a Klingon being crippled is as good as dying, but what it doesn't show us is how much that applies to Worf. The extent to which he really will follow Klingon teaching should be the focus here, but instead it becomes "human vs Klingon" which we kind of already knew. (2) takes center stage later in the episode, but actually ends up being a loose end that's never tied up. We come out of the episode having made no progress on whether in fact Russel was being unethical, as the matter gets dropped once they realize they have to operate on Worf. We also don't learn much of anything about the merits (or demerits) of using experimental procedures on patients who request them. There's actually a whole arc in Boston Legal (which I just finished watching) about whether terminal patients should have the right to use unapproved medications, because what have they got to lose. That's quite an issue to unpack, but it wasn't even mentioned here even though it's essentially the issue in question.

So my idea, having said all this, is that the question of medical ethics vis a vis patients of different cultures, could have been an interesting one. Picard did come in to speak on behalf of respecting Klingon culture, but in terms of the plot that only served to squash discussion of the other topic, that of Russel's ethics. So the two lines of argument were at cross purposes and the result is the episode is a muddle, with none of the above situations really getting a full hearing or resolution.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Thu, Jun 4, 2020, 10:13am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: Ethics

I do like the idea of Pulaski mirroring Picard's viewpoint of respecting Klingon culture, which fits in with some development she had in S2. What the episode tried to be but failed to an extent was to argue that medical ethics would actually change depending on the species involved. Crusher is essentially right if the patient was a human, and she is also right *if* Russel was using patients for her own ends (which I'm not convinced is the case). But Crusher is dead wrong about Worf, and the reason the episode fails is that, as Skeptical suggests, there is no drama if Crusher is just out to lunch, and it's also bad optics to have a main character look like a fool. As things stood here, the only reasonable choices were try to experimental treatment or Worf dies. Him killing himself should have been considered as inevitable if they didn't do it. Yes, *maybe* they could talk him down from that, but this is a separate ethical issue of its own, regarding whether they even have any business telling a Klingon that his culture is wrong about suicide. And that issue is barely touched on in the episode, even though it's even more relevant to our plot than the medical ethics issue is.

Having someone defend Russel's procedure not on its own terms, but on the terms of it being the right choice *for a Klingon* is what the episode needed. It needed the message that although professional ethics have to be objective (meaning every doctor follows the same rules in the Federation), the weight of which procedures they should be performing should change based on the species in question and their belief system. As we see in Babylon 5, it might be wrong to do invasive surgeries on a species that forbids it, and likewise it might be reasonable to do dangerous surgeries on a Klingon warrior who is absolutely willing to accept the risk and doesn't fear death. The reason the episode becomes tedious is because it comes about Crusher's hunch that Russel is being unethical, even though we essentially know nothing about Russel beforehand, and also don't really care either way. Russel says she's being reasonable, Crusher disagrees; big whoop, we know nothing about the science either way since it's technobabble, so we are stuck having to sort of agree with Crusher on principle because she's a lead. The entire problem doesn't hit home and barely even makes sense other than if we just take Crusher's word for it. Having a Pulaski instead of a Russel, basing her idea on Worf's well-being rather than standard human values, would be both interesting and challenging: can medical ethics change based on the patient?
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Tue, Jun 2, 2020, 9:13am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S1: Hide and Q

THIS JUST IN:

Art design on fledgling science fiction show is wacky! This is not a drill, all personnel secure your art history textbooks, THIS IS NOT A DRILL.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Mon, Jun 1, 2020, 4:27pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

@ Omicron,

"Because I've been wrecking my brains on this for three months now"

Freudian slip, I think you meant "wracking" :)
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Mon, Jun 1, 2020, 11:23am (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S2: By Any Other Name

@ Chrome,

I suspect the title implies that you can call a thing anything you like, but it is what it is. When taking the human form, you could call them Kelvins but they *were* humans, and this was their weakness.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" essentially says that Romeo would be just as good as he is if he were called something else, i.e. not called Montague. Changing his name would not alter any of his essential qualities, but would remove the need to call him enemy.

I suppose we could look even deeper into this meaning and infer that perhaps the Kelvins could have come to see humans as allies or friends if they had ceased to differentiate based on "your race" and "our race". The focus on the name of the species (i.e. their differing origins) would seem to be the only reason to alienate the alien. I'm not really sure if the episode puts any focus on that, although it is a Trek message.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:06am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Rascals

Hey, I like The Game!
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Fri, May 29, 2020, 9:41pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S6: Honor Among Thieves

@ Dan W,

"I honestly don't understand why they would ask the Chief of Operations of Deep Space 9, which is the most important station in the quadrant, to do an undercover assignment. You're telling me no one from the Orion Syndicate has been to DS9?"

Because O'Brien must be tortured? It's like a tradition, man.

"I am honestly surprised the Vorta didn't recognise O'Brien, you'd think the Dominion would have profiles on DS9's senior staff, no?"

Maybe the Vorta did recognize him and was enjoying watching O'Brien's seasonal flogging?
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Fri, May 29, 2020, 10:15am (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S2: Return to Tomorrow

"It's worth mentioning since others commented on the disappointing ending that there was a controversy with this episode's writer John Dugan, a Catholic. He wanted Sargon and Thalassa to live on in the end as spirits without bodies, which is how he ended it in the original script. Roddenbery changed it so the two would simply fade into oblivion."

What a petty argument? Are both of them under the assumption that Kirk is a wizard and can "just tell" when a person dies whether their spirit 'goes on' or fades into nothing? I don't even know what it means to argue about this point. Catholics already believe that we have an afterlife *and* that you see nothing special when someone dies. Haha, what a dumb thing to fight about. And actually, the idea of disembodied human spirits floating around isn't even a Christian concept afaik. Or if it is one it's one of those quasi-pagan superstitious beliefs they had been in the 1500's when the old religions were still bound up with the new in many places.
▲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.