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: 197 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 8
Set Bookmark
Mandy Yang
Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 11:33pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Project Daedalus

Gil, yes, who are these Discovery superfans one sees on the internet, who spend so much time crying over the opinions of strangers, with the "leave my sweet Disco aloooone!"

News: many long-time Trek watchers are going to watch the new Trek series, even if it is a very flawed show like Discovery. Instead of crying about their critiques, you could argue why you feel the writing is not incredibly slapdash, or why the jabbering Tilly is already a magnificent Trek icon. Just a thought.
Set Bookmark
Mandy Yang
Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 10:58pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: If Memory Serves

Agree with the previous commenters about Martin-Green. She just might be the stumbling block that prevents the show from ever lifting off. I was withholding judgement about her acting during the first season, but now it seems clear she doesn't have the feel for this sort of sci-fi epic. If last year she was too stiff, now she is too maudlin and soap opera-ish, with an array of cornball tics. She probably would be OK if she were just an ensemble member, but as the all-important lead, she seems unable to carry this thing.

And to anyone who would baselessly accuse me of bigotry or whatnot, please refrain. Penny Johnson Jerald is my favorite thing about that other space show.
Set Bookmark
Andy's Friend
Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 6:47am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S4: Galaxy's Child

@Chrome, Peter G., William B:

I have never really seen what the problem is in this episode, or its predecessor (‘Booby Trap’). It is a story as human as it gets. Are people really so detached from their humanity nowadays? Are we really so fast becoming robots?

Meet Peter, Paul, and Mary. Mary has just met Peter. Peter then tells Mary about his good friend, Paul. Over the next few days or weeks, as Peter and Mary keep meeting and having nice conversations about themselves and their lives, Paul keeps coming up. In the end, after several long chats, Mary feels that she has a pretty good idea of who Paul is. But when she finally meets him, she finds that, although everything Peter told her about him was true, Paul doesn’t correspond, perhaps not at all, to the idea she had made of him.

This is something any minimally adult person will have experienced in life. Nothing new here so far.

Now imagine that Peter is absent at Mary’s first meeting with Paul. This immediately creates a slightly awkward situation, for Mary will have some or perhaps detailed knowledge of some events in Peter’s life, and Peter has no idea of which. What does she know about him? What has his friend told her? Has he exaggerated? Has he been truthful? Has he told her any truly intimate details? Familial matters? Matters of life and death?

Again, none of this should be unknown to any adult: if it is, he or she has been watching too much television, and interacting too little with other people. This is what happens when people meet, and talk. ‘I have a friend who…’ … ‘My cousin is…’ and so on, and so forth. And any sane adult knows which kind of details of a personal nature are innocent to share with a new acquaintance, and which are not. ‘My friend Paul likes wasps’ is fairly innocent. ‘Paul has weird sexual fantasies of being a giant wasp‘ is perhaps not. But of course, if Mary tells Paul, in Peter’s absence, ‘Your friend told me that you like wasps…’, the poor fellow will have no idea of just how much more his friend has told her. Again: absolutely nothing new here.

This episode and its predecessor are therefore intelligent, in that Peter is replaced by a computer, and Paul is artificially created by one in the first instalment. This is simply science-fiction doing what science-fiction should, and showing us new iterations of ages-old human issues made possible by technology. But the problems themselves are as old as mankind. There is nothing new under the sun.

None of this is creepy. None of this is inappropriate. None of this is unprofessional — especially in 'Booby Trap'. We are humans, for Christ’s sake, not robots. All this is extremely human — although I will agree that Geordi’s handling of the situation is, shall we say, clumsy. But that is precisely his trademark when dealing with the opposite sex. As such, these two episodes are good both as sci-fi and as character studies.

A final commentary: I am baffled at the amount of criticism Geordi gets from viewers over these two episodes. I believe this is a cultural phenomenon. I realise that in the United States these days — as well as in Scandinavia where I live — a current in society wishes to transform human beings into orderly robots, or robotic consumers. Disenchantment, in the Weberian sense, is everywhere around us. Society is increasingly desacralized. There is no magic garden any longer, no wonder. Everything is explained rationally and scientifically, with molecules and mathematics, and we humans are increasingly expected to behave rationally and scientifically, while increasingly being reduced to numbers in algorithms ourselves at the same time.

We see how this affects cognition, and argumentation. People increasingly attempt to win arguments based on statistics, not philosophy: numbers, not ideas. We are fast un-learning how to reason. 'Time is money', we are told, and in order to save eight seconds here and twelve seconds there, we are increasingly asked to forget how to think. Let technology do that for us. What a 'Brave New World' this is becoming: that nightmarish scenario is fast becoming true. And it is becoming one at an alarming pace.

Unfortunately, part of this discourse seems to have distorted the perceptions of younger generations of what it means to be human, to the point that even loving and caring gestures are deemed ‘inappropriate’. I have seen people online commenting that Melanie in Hitchcock’s ‘Birds’ (1963) is behaving ‘inappropriately’ for ‘breaking into' Mitch’s house to leave him the two lovebirds , and the note, for example. I have even read American students online commenting that Romeo is a ‘creep’ for ‘stalking’ Juliet, for crying out loud: this is how far removed younger generations seem to be of their own humanity today.

And here I see people complaining that Geordi, the nicest guy on all Star Trek, is a creep, too. Why is that? Is it because he is seen to behave like a pervert? No: it is precisely because he is see to behave like a human. What a truly scaring scenario this is.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 8:58pm (UTC -6)
Re: BSG S2: Pegasus

After reading this review, and the one for TNG Pegasus, I'm left wishing you'd review the 1978 BSG series as well. Get 3 Pegasus reviews up in here. :)
Set Bookmark
Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 12:18am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S1: The Big Goodbye

Can we talk about how Captain Picard calls a staff meeting after using the holodeck for the first time? To rave about it? And why was Wesley there!?

Set Bookmark
Mon, Jan 29, 2018, 4:58am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: What's Past Is Prologue

So with MU Lorca dead and MU Georgiou in the wrong universe, who is the Emperor of the Terran Universe now? Landry? Dear God.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Jan 17, 2018, 2:41am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: The Wolf Inside


"I think you're getting too hung up on nationalities. Acting and casting are largely about looks. Michelle Yeoh may be Chinese Malaysian; but to an audience, she isn't limited to that nationality. The relevant quality is the visible race of the actor."

Um, you don't get it. To your eyes they may look similar or the "same race" (whatever that is supposed to mean) but they are not related at all, nor do they look related in any way. It's pretty obvious that they are of different ethnicities. That is why I brought up the analogy of Russians vs Spaniards. Would you think an average Russian and average Spaniard look the same to an audience? Would you think they must be related because they're both Caucasian and look similar?
Set Bookmark
Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 1:19pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: The Wolf Inside

@Plain and Simple,

Good point about Hoshi vs Georgiou. I was a little annoyed by those comments myself - a classic example of the soft racism that minorities have to deal with on a daily basis today on Planet Earth. Not only that, DSC gave Yeoh's character a Romanian (or Greek?) last name, probably as a subtle hint that mixed marriages are pretty common in that era and race/ethnicity are irrelevant, at least within humans.

Koreans and Malaysian Chinese are about as different ethnically and culturally as Russians are from Spaniards. Being from the same continent is the only thing both groups have in common. Nobody would ever imply that Manuel Hernandez and Vladimir Pushtikov are related, so why do it for Asians? I know that nobody meant harm with the Sato/Georgiou insinuations but please think carefully about what you write next time.
Set Bookmark
Mon, Jan 15, 2018, 4:08am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: The Wolf Inside

I'm glad they finally showed Tyler's real identity. That subplot was starting to get tiresome. The MU plot is convoluted enough without having Prime Klingons disguised as humans to add another layer of confusion.

Wish Lt. Commander Airiam would get more screen time. She's the highest ranking officer after Saru but we never see her in any role. Detmer is just a Lieutenant.
Set Bookmark
Mon, Nov 20, 2017, 2:34pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Into the Forest I Go

@Chrome - Thanks. Wish Airiam would get more screen time in command.

I don't know if anyone else has commented on this, but how does British actor Jason Isaacs manage to put on such a perfect American accent? It even has a slight southern twang to it.
Set Bookmark
Sat, Nov 18, 2017, 10:50pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Into the Forest I Go

Who is the second officer on Discovery? That rank was held by Landry but she was killed by the alien hippo. The doctor holds a similar rank (Lt. Cmdr.) but doctors are usually outside the typical chain of command. And who is the third officer for that matter? Stamets? Or would that be Tyler?
Set Bookmark
Andy G
Tue, Nov 14, 2017, 9:53pm (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Space Seed

I just watched Space Seed again as I haven’t seen it over 15 years. While it’s still a classic, I never realized some of the flaws. Khan is a well conceived character and for 1967, the sleeper ship is a novel idea. Quite frankly, anything that is followed
by TWOK can’t be bad. But...

The takeover is a little too easy and it takes them far too long to identify Khan. For a woman in the 23rd century and a starfleet officer, McGyvers is weak and her portrayal is a bit sexist. The final fight is just not convincing as Kirk should have been incapacitated or killed by someone 5 times stronger who knew he was coming. Finally, this episode was not meant to be viewed in HD as the final fight is unintentionally hilarious which undermines a deadly serious episode. Probably more a 3 Star than my 4 Star memory, but still up there
Set Bookmark
Andy's Friend
Sun, Nov 12, 2017, 12:18pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Re diversity on Star Trek: Discovery:

The problem with the ‘diversity’ seen on DSC is that it is defensive in nature, not innovative.

The ‘diversity’ seen is not trendsetting: it is merely following trends. It is meant to avoid accusations of not living up to the sensibilities of some modern viewers—not to serve as inspiration to make us appreciate true diversity.

There is nothing particularly ‘diverse’ about showing blacks, or gays. They are people like everyone else, and virtually the entire target audience already acknowledges this. This is not a series for Muslim fundamentalists, after all.

I cannot understand the silly American obsession with wanting to see oneself on-screen. It’s puerile, self-absorbed, and actually quite pathetic. I don’t need to see straight white males as myself to enjoy a good story. If China were making great sci-fi with an all-Chinese female crew only, I would love to watch it. When I lived in India, I watched Indian tv and films almost exclusively. I don’t need a straight white male in ‘Devdas’ (1955) to grasp the beauty of that story. What an intelligent audience wants is good stories, and good writing. So far, DSC is offering none of that.

Showing diversity would be having a couple of Hindu bridge officers profess their undying mutual respect and affection in an arranged marriage after Indian—or Vulcan—tradition, and show that arranged marriage evolve to be a happy one.*

Showing diversity would be to have an exceptionally charming, male Muslim bridge officer marry three different women among the crew, and show that polygamous marriage evolve to be a happy one.*

Showing diversity would be to have say, three people of assorted races and sexes all knowingly date each other—and showing that polyamorous relationship to evolve to be a happy one.*

*Within the ‘normal’ parameters of ‘happy’ relationships, not utopian bliss.

Think about it. What would that tell us about diversity and tolerance, regarding just this one aspect—relationships, amorous relations, and marital traditions in other cultures—in the future society depicted?

But we know why this is not the kind of diversity we are shown, don’t we? The truth is, there is neither much creativity among the creative forces behind DSC, nor any desire to show a more tolerant and diverse future.

So, we get this rubbish ‘diversity’ of ‘black female’ and ‘gay’, which is nothing but deeply offensive if you stop and think about it for a moment.

A Russian, a Japanese, and a black woman meant something fifty years ago. The ‘diversity’ we see on DSC means next to nothing today. It is not innovative, and it is not provocative. All things considered, the only thing that is provocative about these characters—including the gay relationship—is the lousy writing affecting virtually all of them in virtually all episodes of Discovery.
Set Bookmark
Andy G
Mon, Oct 30, 2017, 7:49pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad

As a few people have mentioned that Tyler might be a Klingon, I truly hope not. A medical scan from the time of Enterprise would reveal his identity. It's a plot hole way too big for my taste.
Set Bookmark
Andy G
Mon, Oct 30, 2017, 4:00pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad

As many previous commenters have stated Cause and Effect is a classic, but "Magic" isn't bad. Cause and Effect had the use of an established cast and a relatively unique idea. That said, "Magic" had my attention and is probably the best show to date even if the idea isn't new. The use of Stamets as the temporal seer is well conceived and execution by Anthony Rapp was great, but by the end it felt like Burnham feels like the weak link. It felt as though she had previous knowledge of the loops and the ransom idea to Klingons doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm also not seeing much chemistry between her and Tyler who is still a blank slate.

As far Discovery is concerned, I see the potential but in my opinion this show needs a stronger lead. In 2017 Trek you can't have Stamets and Lorca (also Saru) to be the leads, but her character isn't appealing. There have been plenty of interesting women characters on Trek like Janeway (another discussion) or Kira but Burnham isn't it. I hope the producers see this as well and can recalibrate since it seems the talent is there for a solid crew.
Set Bookmark
Andy's Friend
Sat, Oct 28, 2017, 5:13pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: Lethe


Q is something entirely different, and you know it: he is a device to tell fabulous stories that deal with myths and archetypes. He is on an entirely different level of storytelling than Magical Tardigrades on Mushrooms[TM].

I had never thought I would be repeating Elliott's arguments, but there you are: the main point of Q is to present us with possibilities and challenges untold, without us having to delve on pedantic minutiae of plausibility. For we understand that the nature of Q is mostly symbolic, and that he functions on what is essentially a metaphorical plane.

In this interpretation, Q is the ultimate abstraction in Star Trek, beyond even the sort of outlandish alien existence I used to write that Star Trek should have more of, to force us to imagine and attempt to understand the truly alien. Who else but a seemingly omnipotent entity could put mankind on trial? Who else could tempt human beings with that sort of omnipotence?

Q has little to do with the technological debate you were having with wolfstar. Indeed, he even serves as an example of the possibility of the theory that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, making that magic-like quality precisely a crucial part of his function. In that other interpretation of his nature, he enables that very question, contrary to his nature as an abstraction that I first mentioned: is Q merely a being possessing extremely advanced technology?

Many Star Trek fans focus on the *form* of Q. What really matters, however, is his *function*. The ambiguous nature of Q is inherent to that function. Either way, whether as a near-omnipotent entity, or a being manipulating unfathomably advanced technology, Q is, essentially, the perfect enabler of stories.

Who else could transport the Enterprise to a distant part of the galaxy, to humble our heroes and give them a very necessary perspective on the challenges awaiting them? Who else could have one of our heroes die, only to give him an equally valuable perspective, and a second chance at life?

All this is on an entirely different level of storytelling from the sort of 'storytelling' we see on DSC. But there you have it: TNG was dedicated to thematically ambitious storytelling. I still don't know what DSC is about. Frankly, I also no longer care: this series is a complete mess.
Set Bookmark
Andy's Friend
Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 6:53am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S6: Behind the Lines


" Do you honestly think Hitler was doing PR during his campaigns across Europe in WWII? Dear god, some of you will excuse any bad writing with any ridiculous crap that enters your skull. "

Hitler in Paris and the Nazi German flag being raised over the Acropolis in Athens immediately come to mind.

DLPB, think of any major incident in the Eastern Front in WWII, or of many in the western front: what images come to mind? How many of those images are not German? Is the majority of photographic material, so many of the images we usually associate with a great many events in WWII, as in the examples above, not of German origin, made by officials of Nazi Germany?

You may wish to have a look at the German Wikipedia page on the Propagandakompanie of the Wehrmacht, the professional corps of German war photographers, filmmakers, journalists, etc., with a good introduction and links to several dozen of its most prominent individuals:

It fittingly opens with one of the most famous photos documenting its use: a photo exhibition in March 1940 in Berlin "documenting " to the Germans the fine war effort of their troops:,_Berlin,_Ausstellung_von_PK-Bildern.jpg

To see a few thousand photos by 462 Propagandakompanie photographers, see:

Note that many photographers more or less specialised: in certain theatres of war, but also, in certain types of photos, say, 'the everyday life of our troops' -- the canteen or sanitary facilities in barracks, soldiers doing routine maintenance of equipment, soldiers eating, playing games, or otherwise socialising, soldiers writing and sending letters home, etc.

All this is, to some extent, documentation. But it is also a deliberate selection of themes for specific purposes. It is also propaganda.

The same is true of photos of German troops interacting with occupied peoples. Usually, such photos humanise the German troops. Often, they humanise some of the occupied peoples. And some times, they dehumanise certain other occupied peoples. Which, where, when, and why? Again: propaganda.

Finally, note that some of the most memorable photos of the war were specifically staged for the photographer, even if seemingly taken in mid-action during some event, as if the photographer were simply a bystander taking a picture. Often, he was not: entire scenes were choreographed, rehearsed, and repeated in his honour, for his camera to capture. This also includes newsreels, etc. Pure propaganda.
Set Bookmark
Thu, Oct 26, 2017, 7:12pm (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S5: Children of Time

Set Bookmark
Thu, Oct 26, 2017, 7:10pm (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S5: Children of Time

I can't believe some of these comments. Preventing thousands of people from being born is not equivalent to murdering thousands of people. We prevent people from being born every minute we're alive. Also, think of the thousands of people whose existence would've been prevented if they stayed on the planet.

I'm not saying what Odo did was completely problematic, but equating it to mass murder is absolutely ridiculous.
Set Bookmark
Andy G
Mon, Oct 9, 2017, 3:00pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: The Butcher's Knife Cares Not for the Lamb's Cry

This is the first episode of the series where I felt I was watching Star Trek and it gives me hope. I've been entertained thus far, but really the show could have been called anything. I'm hoping the moral conflict plays around the tardigrade plays out more in upcoming episodes and it isn't swept under the rug or technobabbled away. Even with the war storyline, I'm not watching for a shoot em up. Trek can do war just fine but stories like "In the Pale Moonlight" or "Damage" are what they should strive toward, not the CGI fests we've seen so far.
Set Bookmark
Andy's Friend
Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 4:58pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: General Discussion

@ Jammer

Indeed. I was referring to the three latest films, for as I also just wrote, I haven't seen Discovery, and I don't presume to be categorical on what I haven't seen. And in any case, a pilot episode, and one without most of the crew absent at that, is not enough to give anyone a clear indication, of course. Let's see what happens, and hope for the best.
Set Bookmark
Andy's Friend
Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 4:32pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: General Discussion

@ Brian S.

You're absolutely right about everything you just wrote. But there is more to it than that. While I cannot presume to speak for Michael, I should say this:

TOS did something amazing: it had its cake and ate it, too. Meaning it created a diverse crew, to promote diversity, as you just wrote. But it didn't do it at the expense of great stories: it told great stories, also. And many of those stories were monuments to humanism: there was a *coherence between the cast and the stories, between style and substance*.

Modern 'Trek' doesn't do this. Modern Trek, meaning the post-Berman age of the J.J. Abrams films, tells atrocious stories. Modern 'Trek' doesn't care to edify, doesn't care to inspire, doesn't care to provoke our thoughts *story wise*.

Therefore, all its diversity is superficial only. And therefore, it becomes extremely frustrating to see such focus on what is but hollow and token diversity. "Look, we have transmorphics and robosexuals among the bridge officers!" This is shallow, and puerile. It's all about style. The stories told simply don't support any claims of humanism. What does it matter, then, that there are transmorphics and robosexuals among the crew, when all is but a cynical, shameless lie?

As I said, I can't presume to speak for Michael. But I for one resent all the emphasis given to the composition of casts, when the stories told are as atrocious as they are. Regrettably, the American public seems to care more about having x% blacks, x% Asians, x% females, and x% robosexuals among the cast than what stories are actually being written and told.

In that sense, all the talk about diversity in 'Star Trek' nowadays strikes me as very tiresome: for not only is it superficial, but even worse, it is cynical, and calculating. It is no longer setting the trend, as it once was: it is merely following it, expecting to get our hard-earned money in return. Diversity doesn't get much more fake than that, does it?
Set Bookmark
Andy's Friend
Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 2:29pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S1: The Vulcan Hello / Battle at the Binary Stars

@Chrome, @Omicron (below)

Chrome: "Re: the pointless "SJW" witch hunt, can't we just use normal words like activists or progressives or something? I feel like SJW is a net-only derogatory term that just leads to polarized discussions"

You're right about the last part, but that is true of any term, regardless how correct it is: using terminology to divide people and limit them to one of two positions in a discussion, even when objectively correct (positivism vs hermeneutics; idealism vs physicalism; isolationism vs contextualism, etc., etc.), tends to be divisive, as if no compromise, not even dialogue is possible.

But---and this is a big but, for I am not American and don't live there, and American reality, from my European point of view, seems tragically and almost hysterically warped these days---I also tend to view "SJW" (a term I never use myself) as a very unpleasant type of personality.

The way I see it (and I may be wrong), SJWs are beyond simple "activists" and "progressives", as you suggest. To me, they seem to be radicals: the sort of unpleasant people suffering from some monomania, whether animal rights, women's rights, or whichever cause they have become enamoured with.

Such people tend to be exceptionally obnoxious, as they seem to live to see transgressions of the particular cause they have adopted everywhere. They see little else and speak of little else, but speak about it a lot.

I agree with you that we should avoid simple labels; we are all more than Marxists, meat-eaters, or Real Madrid fans. But I always thought that the more intelligent type of people who nevertheless use such terms used it to denote an excessive zeal of some sort---whether a radical, a true fanatic, or simply a youth who just wants to belong somewhere, doesn't really have a clue of what he or she is talking about, but does so excessively.

Tell me, is this perception wrong? Is the term really used that loosely?


I'm with you on this one. I haven't watched Discovery yet, and may never. The trailer suggests anything but Star Trek to me: take away the familiar badge etc., and all you have left seems to be a war saga in space. None of what has been written here indicates otherwise.

That is not what Star Trek is about. Star Trek is single stories---episodes---dealing with single issues: myths, as Elliott, who doesn't seem to frequent this site anymore, so well used to put it. Star Trek is larger than life. Star Trek doesn't need continuous story-arcs and character development, for that is not what Star Trek is about.

It's funny: I used to disagree with Elliott on many particulars, but he was absolutely right on the universals. Star Trek is about myths, and archetypes. And above all, like so many of you here have noted, it's about making us believe in a brighter future.

Let us compare the levels of ambition. In "Encounter at Farpoint", TNG began its run by putting humanity on trial by an enigmatic entity who was, shall we say, a little more powerful than you and I. And that entity said it himself, all those episodes later---the trial never ends: for it's about the unknown possibilities of existence.

Forget about flaws in execution: there is a greatness to that episode, an ambition that sets the tone for what TNG would become, and also reflects what Star Trek is all about. I just can't see that ambition in anything the many commenters here have written about these episodes.

P.S: I have read all the comments here by all (took me a while!). Thanks, everyone :)
Set Bookmark
Andy's Friend
Sun, Sep 17, 2017, 4:46am (UTC -6)
Re: ORV S1: Old Wounds

@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi, @Cosmic,

For the record, I have not seen the Orville. Just want to point out a misunderstanding on the part of Cosmic.

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi: “So please explain to me: How is our treatment of these two shows "a double standard"? It certainly seems consistent to me."

Cosmic: “Light tone = I like this. Dark tone= I don't like this. (…) Treat a light toned Trek-style series as something amazing, treat a dark toned Trek show as something terrible. Double standard.”

Cosmic, that is not the definition of double standard. An example of double standard is this:

1 - Treat a *light toned* Trek-style series *with a Western, English-speaking crew* as something amazing.
2 - Treat a *light toned* Trek-style series *with a non-Western, non-English speaking crew* as something terrible.
...even if everything else (story, sets, music, etc.) is exactly the same.

Here, you no longer have one standard, but two, that both must be met to make you happy. It is when you discover that to someone, it is not only a matter of A, but also B, when all that someone's great speeches of A turn out to be hollow unless also that tiny, little, hidden B -- that you may accuse them of double standards.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Aug 20, 2017, 2:07am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S5: Doctor Bashir, I Presume

A very strange coincidence seems to have occurred...

The title references the famous line "Dr. Livingstone, I presume" reportedly made by Henry Stanley upon finding Dr. David Livingstone.

The director of this episode is David Livingston. I wonder if they specificsllly had him helm this episode as a bit of a joke.
Next ►Page 1 of 8
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2019 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.