Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:

Total Found: 185 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 8
Set Bookmark
Brian
Fri, May 11, 2018, 11:37am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Wars: The Last Jedi

I think 3.5 is too generous, looking at the big picture. Peter Gs post from a couple days ago nailed it. TFA was an empty shell. Johnson did the right thing and threw out the garbage, but it was by no means a good film. On story telling, on pacing, on emotional impact, it flopped. ESB was far and away a better film. Comparatively, TLJ feels like amateur fan fiction. Its nice to see people trying to be "generous" but also kind of sad. Have our standards really fallen so far? This is supposed to be STAR WARS! My only hope is that Disney will tire of holding the reigns and eventually pass them to a small film company who will resurrect the SW universe properly.
Set Bookmark
Brian
Mon, Mar 5, 2018, 3:15am (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S2: Carbon Creek

Great episode. Not one of Jammer's best reviews.
Set Bookmark
Brian
Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 12:55am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Will You Take My Hand?

Well, I've spent hours writing up reviews for this season the past couple months. This time, I'm just done. The writing sucks plain and simple. This is like watching a middle-school orchestra try to play a rachmaninoff concerto. Last time I checked middle school concerts were free. I would never pay a single dime to these people, probably one of the worst shows I've ever seen. The writing did not improve a single bit. Not even a glimmer of hope. The finale was trite, conveniently and simply ended in the most lazy possible way, and then we get a cliffhanger to desperately try to reel people back in for round 2. Not a chance in hell I will be paying anything for this junk. Oh I'll watch out of morbid curiosity and if it gets good, then great I'll come back on board. But this? This was just an epic failure and I place the blame squarely on poor production, show running, and writing. The season is a mess and the ending swept it all under the rug.
Ouch.
Set Bookmark
Brian1
Sun, Feb 11, 2018, 5:01am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: The War Without, The War Within

I was wondering, does anyone watch After Trek? I have to say it’s kind of annoying. On a show that I found more worthy it might be pretty cool and interesting, like TNG OR DS9, but here... basically the writers and actors get together with a professional suck up for a host and have a big circle jerk about how “great” and “amazing” this show and its various plot lines are, how “intense” the drama is (yawn), etc. Its a bunch of self congratulatory sessions on a show that doesn’t deserve it. Anyone else notice this?
Set Bookmark
Brian
Tue, Feb 6, 2018, 1:13am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: The War Without, The War Within

I really wanted to like this episode more than I actually did. After first viewing, I was impressed with how the script felt much better than the last few, how they were finally listening to feedback and incorporating more character scenes, and showing more of the crew. The pacing was slowed, and the impact was overall positive. Lisa Randolph has an extensive resume of TV writing and it's obvious she has experience with pacing a show--something many of the STD writers have struggled with this season. The Discovery suddenly feels more "starship-like" than ever before, showing how far a few simple scenes with extras, or an exterior shot of the cargo/shuttle bay, can go towards creating a sense of place and atmosphere.

Which is partly why I was so unexpectedly disappointed this week. They made great quality of life improvements and up until the last 15 minutes the show had good momentum, so why did this episode of Discovery fall flat yet again for the umpteenth time? Once again, the show is sinking under its own weight, the weight coming in the form of baggage left over from the early part of the season. Baggage which would have been long forgotten if the show was not so thoroughly addicted to serialization. The Ash/Burnham sub-plot comes back from the dead, and after a pleasant hiatus during the MU arc, we are treated to a yet another dyad scene where Ash and Burnham tell us how they are feeling. The scene drags on forever. I don't blame Latif or Martin-Greene--they really tried their best with the script they were handed, but there were just too many words. They could have handled this scene--what should have been a real climax in their arc--with sensitivity and subtlety. What transpired in this scene could have been delivered in complete silence or with minimal words, in about 1-2 minutes. Hell, in the hands of extremely capable actors this scene could have been accomplished with Ash and Burnham passing each other in the hall with just a look and a response. Instead we got what has unfortunately become par for the series--bloated scenes that fail to deliver. This one came off like a checkbox despite their valiant attempt to sell it.

Second reason--the acting. One can't help but notice, a vast majority of these failed scenes feature SMG in some way. There is just something not right about how she is playing her character and it's enough to make one doubt her abilities as an actress. It's difficult to tell as a viewer what the true problem is, as they've handed her a fairly difficult task in trying to play a vulcan human hybrid. I can say that Tim Russ came across as more comfortable in his role during the pilot episode of Voyager, than SMG does by nearly the end of season 1, and that is a big problem for the show. My inner "cynic" imagines a casting where she was picked not for her acting abilities, but because she was black and female. Now I realize that isn't politically correct of me to say, but her lackluster performance sort of forces me to go there. Beyond SMG, there is variable talent, but it's pretty hard to tell who's good when only a few characters ever get to be in the story. Cornwell (Jayne Brook) delivers her lines in the most awkward way, she really seems uncomfortable on the set also. Latif does an adequate job and gets stars for effort. I think if he got better scripts he could do really well. Probably the only cast member who has been consistently excellent is Michelle Yeoh. Compared this cast to TNG and it's just no comparison--Patrick Stewart, Jonathan Frakes, Brent Spiner. These guys carried the show through the first season of horrible scripts and if it was not for the excellent cast I'm fairly certain the show would have tanked.

The third item dragging this show into the ground is the spore drive. And it's not even that I have an issue with the science or lack-there-of. It's not a bad idea and I do find it interesting. What I take issue with is how it is used in the show, or should I say over-used. Someone else alluded to this in their review--it's used essentially as a magic wand to take the Discovery anywhere, anytime, and do anything. Sure, it can get you stuck in the Mirror Universe, or maybe kill Stamets. But somehow, the writers always seem to find a way out and suddenly the spore drive is a good idea again. It's like a wild card or a magic box that anything can pop out of at any time---risky yet somehow always ends up being essential to drive the story forward. This time, used to initiate an extremely silly side-plot involving the propagation of a new crop of spores on a random moon. Every time it comes up it's like "Ahh, the spore drive--what insane development in the plot will it enable next?" It's one of those things that would have made a great standalone episode in TNG, or even a two-parter, then everyone realizes it isn't safe or sustainable and the technology is shelved, but then next season it's pulled out again for a reunion, and so on. Something that comes up like once or twice a season, sort of like Q. And in essence, that's what the spore drive is. It's a Q. Q was fun in TNG because nobody controlled him. And that's why the spore-drive isn't much fun. Discovery has too much control over it. Way too much control to be believable or immersive. For example, it would be far more entertaining if the mycelial network contained entities that you had to negotiate with in order to use the network, ala the wormhole in DS9. That's not to say DS9 didn't mine the wormhole for all it was worth in terms of plot development. They sure did. But I liked how very early in the show, they did set up some lore to explain it, spent a few episodes very deep in that lore actually, and came out the other side with a plot device that was far more realistic and immersive. And it was limited, it went from one place to another and that was it, which ended up making DS9 feel very significant because of that limitation.

So, for me 2 stars. I appreciate the slower pacing, lack of meaningless action scenes in this one, but the episode inevitably had to carry the series baggage forward. They waited until the last 10 minutes to do it, but it eventually came and it continues to weigh quite a bit. The absolute best thing they could do for the next episode is drop some of it.
Set Bookmark
Brian
Thu, Feb 1, 2018, 12:04pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: What's Past Is Prologue

Joseph B said:
"@Jammer:
Nice review!
I enjoyed this episode much more than you did, but I can certainly appreciate the concerns you outlined. (And I was also hoping that they had overshot by 150 years!)
From my perspective, this was a 4 Star (OMG!) episode based on the fact that
* I was highly entertained, and
* It felt like “Star Trek” to me (albeit with tproduction values not seen in any prior Trek TV series.)
I was very skeptical that CBS could pull off a modern serialized Star Trek series, but I’m fully on board now. I’ve even gotten use to the viewing it on CBS All-Access — which has provided a consistently quality viewing experience since the series came back from hiatus.
Live Long and Prosper!"

This sounds like a pay-for-positive to me. Anybody else?
Set Bookmark
Brian
Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 1:04pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: What's Past Is Prologue

The climax of this episode was supposed to be as we realized the fate of all sentient beings was uncertain, that everything might cease to exist. Except the way it actually played out, was it seemed like a cursory plot twist thrown in to make it sound epic, but lacking any emotional or intellectual impact. This was supposed to be the pinnacle moment of the episode, and it fell...completely...flat. And that, in a nut shell is what's wrong with STD. Lazy writing that reaches only for the most obvious, only the most cliche at all times.

If Star Trek TNG was a robber needing money and you it's victim, he would approach you calmly on the street, explain that he needed money for drugs, he didn't like robbing people but he really had to, and he needs $40 that's all, if you just give it to him he'll go on his way. You hand him the $40. TNG was successful.

Star Trek Discovery is an insane person who rolls up to you on the street in a tank, demands you transfer your entire net worth into his account, or else he will fire the tanks main cannon at your head. You ask, "Are you joking?" and run away. Since the tank cannon is his only weapon, your swiftness on foot saves you. You keep all your money and STD fails.
Set Bookmark
Brian
Mon, Jan 29, 2018, 11:56pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: What's Past Is Prologue

On the subject of criticizing other reviewers--
I will freely admit it--I disliked almost every episode in the series so far except "Magic to make the Sanest..." and my reviews reflect that. I will also admit that I have been extremely critical of the show, perhaps overly critical. But to come on here and denigrate my thoughts and feelings (and those of many others), essentially, calling us whiners who won't want the show to succeed, you reveal yourself to be fundamentally mistaken. You see, the most vocal critics are the biggest Trek fans. We want Star Trek to succeed. I want Star Trek to succeed. As many have already succinctly pointed out, there was much valid criticism levied against TNG season 1, and it changed. It not only got better, it turned into one of the best runs of story-telling in the history of television. So, to you self-titled defenders of STD, I call you out. I say, your emotions are driving you. Yes you want this show to succeed. I know that. So why not welcome criticism? Why not let it make the show better? That's why we are all here isn't it? The fanboys and the critics all with their foot in the ring. We're all watching the same show are we not. I don't need to defend my views or my criticisms of the show. I come here each week and post my honest thoughts about the show. I would hope you continue to do the same. Please refrain from writing reviews on other posters. No matter how vitriolic a review sounds, I guarantee I can find you one that sounds like it was a pay-for-positive. In fact, sometimes in the swirling emotions of a new season of Trek, people can get so lost in hope and nostalgia that the critical review is drowned out and buried beneath three hundred pages of speculation on the next big plot twist. We get dragged along by the current until someone swims to shore, gets out and looks at what is actually going on. And what's actually going on is this:

STD has fallen flat for multiple, valid reasons as have been extensively documented here on Jammers. As it stands the story line is strung out and only supported by periodic plot twists and reveals. The scripting is poor by any definition. The writers have struggled to produce interesting characters or stories. And because of that, the larger story arc just fails to have any emotional impact. I think tonight as I was watching, there was a moment where, according to the show, the life of every sentient being in the universe hung on a wire. I did not care, because the show never gave me a reason to. That's STDs major failing--shooting for big, huge, far-out ideas but lacking the story-telling chops, or patience to take us there. They are trying on daddies shoes but it's obvious, they don't fit. And so from my perspective, as a lay person not involved in TV production, the only assumption I can make is that the writers and producers are just flat out inexperienced young people who aren't as good at writing television as other people I've observed write and produce good television. If that hypothesis proves to be wrong, I'll be the first one to celebrate and admit I was wrong.



Set Bookmark
Brian
Sun, Jan 28, 2018, 12:09am (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S2: The Doomsday Machine

I don't understand the positive comments. This episode was pretty bad. The plot went virtually nowhere. Some scenes were painfully drawn out. I was just bored for most of it.
Set Bookmark
Brian
Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 12:52am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: The Wolf Inside

The scripting and acting continues to be horrible. Mumbling dialogue, long expository sentences, it just gets worse as time goes by. Sonequa Martin Green looks great in a night gown but she is not a good lead. The plot is going nowhere fast. I don't care about any of the main characters. At this point I literally spent most of the episode hoping characters would die or be killed, so we could get them off the screen and make way for some good actors to be brought in to replace them.

Meanwhile, the message boards (including this one) consist mainly of people mired in discussion of the inane "plot" details that I could not care less about.

Yes, we now have a whole generation of Trek fans reduced to fighting over table scraps.
Set Bookmark
Brian
Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 12:49am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Despite Yourself

Frakes saved this one but the scripting is still amateurish. The storyline continues to be convoluted. Most people here are caught up in the drama trying to guess what comes next. I personally could not care less because I don't care about the characters, and the reason is, they exist only as props to move along the pre-determined plot. Essentially every character is a plot device, especially burnham and tyler. The characters that I'm supposed to care the most about, I care the least about. If we are to care about the main characters, we must see them living their daily lives, going through the motions, encountering every day situations. But the series is so focused on serialization that we totally miss it. But it's not even doing serialization correctly. BSG built great tension in the first season with its use of the second storyline down planetside--you essentially had two parallel serial arcs that you knew would eventually clash and produce good stories.

So, why should I care which universe they are in? Does it even matter?
For me not at all. I have no sense of place for the Enterprise or her crew at this point. I don't know where they are and I don't care that much.

By this time in TNG we were getting into things like Q ("Hide and Q"), meeting Lwaxana Troi for the first time, a fun early holodeck episode "The Big Goodbye", and then of course "Datalore" with the crystalline entity.

Were these incredible episodes? Of course not, but the point is, midway through season 1 the writers were stepping out and establishing big characters and concepts.

With Discovery, we have some story arcs that really went nowhere, and now an abrupt switch into the mirror universe that feels like a big reset button. Now, don't get me wrong, I think the mirror universe is fun. But I think you do things like that once you have the basics down, once you have established the universe a bit more. We don't have any big characters. There was one semi-successful guest star who played Mudd and that was my favorite episode of the first season.

I think the entire show is totally weighed down by its prequel status and I can almost feel the constrictions in place on what they can do. Maybe that's why we are in the mirror universe already. The more I watch the more I'm sure it was a mistake to do another prequel. They should've just gone forward with the series, something totally new. And I know a lot of people are with me on this. It doesn't mean we can't have some fun in the past, but it's the past and we can all feel it. The actors can feel it too. That means it's even MORE important to focus on the basics, the characters, their lives, their relationships. The universe needs to be FLESHED OUT more, we need some stories about crew members on the enterprise, we need to see different areas of the ship, get a few more standalone episodes. These arcs are just....falling flat. I can't think of any other way to put it.




Set Bookmark
Brian S.
Mon, Jan 8, 2018, 4:20pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Wars: The Last Jedi

@PeterG

"I took Snoke's word for it that he knew Kylo's every thought...the idea that Snoke would gather only some generality like "Kylo will kill his enemy" and not actually see his *every thought* would mean that Snoke is just an idiot. I automatically negated that as a possibility while watching it but upon reflection..."

++

A lot of the Sith masters we know about are killed by their apprentices.

Sidius kills Plageuis
Vader kills Sidius
Ren kills Snoke

Sith masters aren't idiots.....and yet, none of them foresee the moment of their own betrayal.....even though almost all other past Sith masters are, inevitably, betrayed by their apprentices at some point.

It's not idiocy. Arrogance, overconfidence, willful blindness, perhaps, but not idiocy.

In a way, a Sith apprentice's "true enemy" is always his master. The master is the person holding back the apprentice from his true potential. The master is the person exploiting the apprentice. The apprentice doesn't become the master until he kills his master. And the Sith apprentice doesn't become the Sith master just by letting some neophyte Jedi scout do that work for him in her own flailing self-defense

Personally, I thought it was pretty obvious that Kylo Ren killed him. Snoke set that confrontation up to be Kylo's initiation. A test on Kylo's Dark Side journey. That's why Snoke wanted Kylo to strike Rey down. What Kylo did--in proper Sith fashion--was to take advantage of a rare opportunity when his master's guard was down and strike. In this universe, it's the only explanation that really makes sense.

Though I also agree that the writing and direction were poor if this many people genuinely thought that Rey killed Snoke.
Set Bookmark
Brian Bates
Fri, Jan 5, 2018, 8:03am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Firestorm

How are so many people praising the score? Did no one else recognize that it's mostly small segments of various Star Trek scores (probably just short enough to avoid being legally labeled plagiarism) woven together? I've enjoyed plenty of Debney's work but I wonder if I need to take a closer listen and see if it's actually original (or maybe he was just told "make it like Star Trek" so much that this was the result.
Set Bookmark
Brian
Fri, Dec 29, 2017, 6:39pm (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S2: I, Mudd

You good for nothing thing thing thing thing...
Set Bookmark
Brian
Sun, Dec 24, 2017, 11:12pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Wars: The Last Jedi

Star Wars taken over by corporate conglomerate and a procession of amateur "filmmakers" proceed to bumble and fumble their way through two useless movies. It sounds so cliche when written out like that but it's exactly what we have.
It's like when some Chinese company decides to reverse engineer a piece of American or German engineering and, sure, they come up with something that looks similar and even functions on a limited basis, but it quits working and falls apart within a week. That's what TFA and TLJ are. A bad copy that only looks real from a few feet away. I could write 10 pages outlining exactly what went wrong but to be honest, but I like how a poster here put it--there is no magic. The look on Obiwan's face when Luke said the name he'd not heard in years--that moment when something CLICKED in your mind and Lucas had you hooked. It's just not here.
Don't waste your money, or time.
Go watch the originals again. Watch the prequels. Watch Rogue One. Watch Star Wars Rebels. Read the Thrawn trilogy again. Do whatever you have to do to get your Star Wars fix. Cross your fingers and pray that some of the spin-off movies build on the momentum of Rogue One (which while not perfect, puts the main trilogy movies to shame).
Set Bookmark
Brian1
Tue, Nov 28, 2017, 9:00pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Into the Forest I Go

* meant to put in my new screen name of "Brian1" there to differentiate myself from the other Brian*
Set Bookmark
Brian
Tue, Nov 28, 2017, 8:59pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Into the Forest I Go

I was wondering if anyone here, including Jammer, have noticed what I think of as "relativism" (or lack there of) in Star Trek reviews. By this I mean that for me, a three star episode of TNG or DS9 (or BSG, or Babylon 5) is almost always better than a three star episode of Enterprise or Voyager. Sort of like there is a high tier sci fi set that competes amonst themselves and a low tier. There are 2 1/2 or even 2 star episodes in TNG that I enjoy more than 3 star enterprise episodes. Anyone else notice this? I think it would be a hard task to rate episodes that can stand against higher tier shows. I will note that Voyager was unique in that the majority of its episodes were mediocre but when it was good, like 3 1/2 to 4 stars those episodes seemed more like high tier episodes and can hold their own.. Enterprise, while I don't hate it, seems like I would still be watching 3 star TNG or DS9 than Enterprise's top scoring episodes. It's sort of like gold handicaps: Enterprise having an excellent day, while deserving of praise and a high star rating, just can't compete in my opinion with DS9/TNG/BSG/Babylon 5 on one of their excellent days. That's why it seems to me like these reviews are scored relative to their own show, or their own tier, but that Jammer doesn't really try to make the star ratings be consistent for all shows.

Secondly, with that established, I would say Discovery is definitely lower tier Star Trek/sci fi. That doesn't mean it is bad television (I still think Voyager and even Enterprise are more worth watching than the majority of television) or even bad sci fi, but just that it can't compete against the greats.
Set Bookmark
Brian1
Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 10:14pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S1: Rogue Planet

What no one seems to notice is that this is not the only Star Trek showing shape shifters known to the federation. TNG's "The Dauphin" features two shapeshifters. Clearly they are not the same species as The Founders or Odo, but they are still there and have relations with the Federation. I don't fault DS9, however, as the series is clear Odo is looking g for his home, and his species, not merely other shapeshifters. I assume he can tell enough from the Federation database that other known species of shapeshifters are not his. He remains very interested in reports of other shapeshifters because they may be his species, not just because they are shapeshifters or "metamorphs".
Set Bookmark
Brian
Sat, Nov 25, 2017, 8:27pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S5: Fifth Season Recap

I definitely agree, Iceman. This is when the show reached its highest plateau in season 5-6. And although there aren't that many episodes like In the Pale Moonlight that actually advance the plot, rather than just using the Dominion War storyline to construct the plot of individual episodes, I still think it works very well. I love the high stakes and the politics (which is why I also love Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica, but especially Babylon 5), and it keeps the show fresh in how it uses the "current events" of the show as a setting to base episodes on and they change from season to season.
Set Bookmark
Brian1
Sat, Nov 25, 2017, 8:19pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Into the Forest I Go

I don't usually have trouble suspending disbelief with Star Trek, but I found the whole spore drive being plugged into Stamets thing really hard to get past. I know, there have been implausible things on Trek many times but this is the worst since it's supposed to be grounded in science (unlike the Q or prophets who are more clearly fantasy). Yep, just plug him in and somehow he can guide these also implausible spore things to make the ship jump. It was one thing when it was the creature who was inherently oriented with the spores, but just for some human to do it? I'm glad the drive seems to be done with though.
Set Bookmark
Brian1
Sat, Nov 25, 2017, 4:22pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Context Is for Kings

@ Trekker: "Star Trek isn't a Sci-Fi intrigue show with mysterious plots, cool tech, and morally ambiguous characters. Humanity was meant to be exalted for our virtues, not made grey for our modern issues."

Star Trek can and does have those things... the first two are in every Star Trek series. How many mysteries were there to be solved on TNG? And of course there has always been the cool tech. As for the third, the morally ambiguous characters, they were used to great effect on DS9. The difference between that and Discovery is that the ambiguous characters were not Star Fleet officers. Sure there was the occasionally, as in quite rare, time when Siskin made a grey decision, but that's all. I guess my point is Star Trek needs those things you mentions, but not just them alone, it also needs its trademark philosophy and optimisum, which this show lacks. It also lacks chemistry among the crew and the usual pleasant to watch, lovable characters that have been crucial to Star Trek through the years.

Oh and James, Nemesis sucked, and Jammer was spot on with his critique of Voyager (he was quite positive when the show deserved it, which it did a significant amount of the time, a point you seem to miss). I've never seen a bigger hack job, cash cow of a Star Trek film than Nemesis. If you personally liked it, or Voyager, that's fine, but don't try to act like Jammer just doesn't "get it" as far as Star Trek is concerned just because he is willing to call out the franchise when it deserves it.
Set Bookmark
Brian
Wed, Nov 15, 2017, 11:27pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Into the Forest I Go

Josh wrote:
"I'm not as thrilled with the episode as everyone else, but it was enjoyable.

I think the main problem was that the resolution felt entirely unearned. We've seen very little of this war - eight episodes following one ship. During that time we never really saw the larger ramifications of the war, except for the episode defending the mining colony and another random ship being destroyed. The rest of the time it was always admirals telling Lorca how badly it was going. We never feel the gravity of the situation, the pain and anguish, the Klingons taking lives we care about or the possibility of the Federation being conquered or destroyed.

And then we have a scene with swelling music over Burnham saying "It's done. It's over." as if we had just witnessed Frodo carrying the ring to Mordor or the Rebels defeating the Empire. Those moments earned their epic triumphs. Here, I did not feel a thing."

Thank you, Josh, for saying exactly what needs to be said. You are exactly right.
Set Bookmark
Brian
Sun, Nov 5, 2017, 10:15pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

So, it appears that little blue thingies swirling around can explain, be, or do anything in this universe. Except it's the laziest possible way to characterize a new race. There are FAR too many blue sprinkles in this show. The writing, after a glimmer of hope in the last 2 episodes, is right back in the dumpster. Speeches to cameras galore, overly expositional wooden dialogue, and excruciatingly long filler scenes (near the end with the antenna). The kissing scene was cringey and not even close to believable. The plots are muddled, the pacing is off again. The dutch angles somehow are back. Overall this was a lazy episode and the writers seriously need to get their sh*t together.

1 star.
Set Bookmark
Brian
Sun, Nov 5, 2017, 11:43am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad

We can only hope the DIS writers go back and draw some inspiration from B5. Could you imagine, bringing back the spirit of B5 and applying it to the ST universe?
The shadows were the most compelling enemy (if you could call them that) in the history of television. Londo was one of the most tragic characters I've ever witnessed. Every single person that I have had watch B5 eventually becomes so engrossed in the arc they can do nothing else except finish the show with their jaw on the floor. Getting to the end of season 4 feels like falling off a cliff and I've never felt the same way with another television show, ever.

I find it funny B5 would even pop up in a discussion here. You can't even compare it to DS9, it's totally different. Not better, not worse. Just fundamentally different and special. So any argument founded on a comparison of the two is automatically suspect.


Set Bookmark
Brian S
Fri, Nov 3, 2017, 5:20pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Majority Rule

Possible explanation for the cloaking device.....it cloaks the ship visually, but not to any sensors.

So maybe you can use a cloaking device to project visible light from behind the ship to the front, thus making it appear invisible to the naked eye.....but any of the other countless devices that can make device that can scan for metal, or scan for life signs, or whatever a warp core is made of would still be easily spotted by any advanced civilization.

Which is also in keeping with some of the Star Trek stories over the years. Cloaked ships tended to have very high energy signatures. Those who knew what they were looking for and how to find it (radiation surge, plasma leak, a tachyon detection grid) could spot a cloaked ship.

In this universe--unlike the superpower that the ST Federation is portrayed as--the human-centric Union is considered to be a technologically pedestrian species in comparison to the Krill and several others. So their cloaking technology might be good enough to fool the cameras and radar of a primitive, barely space-faring world, but it makes sense it would be useless against the scanners of the other adversaries who can easily detect the signature radiation from a warp core regardless of whether or not someone see it just by looking out their window.
Next ►Page 1 of 8
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2018 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.