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: 49 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 2
Set Bookmark
Henson
Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 12:32pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

@wolfstar

Wait. Let me get this straight. Windows 9 was never released by Microsoft...because it was somehow WORSE than Windows 10? Yikes.

No, my guess is that CBS will release season 3 first, and then make season 2 to explain any of the story problems from season 3 that were never explained. It'll be Star Trek: Picard's Memento.
Set Bookmark
Henson
Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 11:27am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi

"Now there's Lower Decks. Discovery Season 3 starts in October. Then ST:Prodigy, Picard S3, The Pike Show, The Section 31 Show... "

Picard Season 3? Did we enter a time vortex sometime in the last few months, or a parallel dimension where Season 2 never exists? Or maybe Data removed all instances of the number 2 when I wasn't looking, to stop the loop! Or course!
Set Bookmark
Henson
Sat, Aug 8, 2020, 11:35am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

@PM

"...People with poor social skills will probably hate it."

Nerds?
Set Bookmark
Henson
Mon, Mar 23, 2020, 8:24pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 1

@wolfstar

"splitting heirs"? What, did we get a royal divorce already?
Set Bookmark
Henson
Mon, Mar 23, 2020, 8:49am (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 1

@Philadlj

"Picard was changed back from being a SPIDER MAN with a hypospray, for crying out loud! ;) "

I think you mean Barclay, right?
Set Bookmark
Henson
Sat, Mar 21, 2020, 6:47am (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 1

@Nolan

"Also waiting for Brent Spiner's character to be revealed as an upgraded Lore that's been effimg with everyone. (Woulda been better too)"

Could certainly happen. I believe this Soong did mention being interested in "mind transfer", which would explain his older, more human-like appearance.
Set Bookmark
Henson
Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 9:58pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 1

Um...okay, that's awkward. There's a new poster using my same username on this website now.

Since I've been posting here for a while, could you perhaps choose a new username, (nu)Henson?
Set Bookmark
Henson
Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 8:52pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 1

Well put, Robert. I personally get tired of people breaking off into camps each week and gnatting back and forth over what is essentially the same product. Live and let live, fellow Trekkers.

As for the episode, I’m still holding out hope that it’s not a Skynet/Reaper scenario. Sutra is intentionally misinterpreting the message. The super synths are not malevolent but Sutra is planning to use them like how Lore used the Crystalline Entity.

I really really hope that the organic vs. machine idea is a misdirect. Because the idea is just too small to be such a big deal in the Trek universe.

We already know that there are godlike aliens in the Trek universe that evolved from “lesser” forms so we know for a fact that organic-synth conflict is not inevitable. Unless the Douwd, Organians, Metrons, Cytherians, etc. just complete anomalies that never developed any AI? And they never bothered to warn any of the less advanced races of the impending synthpocalypse? None of the organics that evolved into energy beings bothered helping other organics avoid it? Were the Organians and Metrons just f’ing with Kirk when they implied that humanity can advance to their level thousands of years in the future?

Not to mention how there are non-godlike organics with extraordinary abilities. The Founders are basically immortal, they can shapeshift, they can survive extreme conditions, they are in many ways far superior to synthetics. There’s also Species 8472, incredibly advanced and uses completely organic technology.

Plus the Federation has already dealt with a super AI with godlike powers, V’Ger. V’Ger was given immense powers by a race of machines. It could easily wipe out entire fleets and planets. But its goal was to find its creator and when it merged with Decker, it achieved a new level of existence.
Set Bookmark
Henson
Sun, Mar 15, 2020, 10:59am (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Broken Pieces

@Dougie

"Gee, I guess it’s a fictional universe, so Anything that’s necessary to get it to a certain story point has happened."

I'm afraid this is a misunderstanding of my original argument. My original point was that you can't automatically transfer the real world into a futuristic setting if the premise of the setting contradicts the real world, or implies otherwise.

The example was that you can't simply assume that capitalist structures will emerge or have emerged in the Federation based on their dominance in our present world, because one of the premises of Star Trek is that the Federation no longer employed capitalist structures. If this is to change in the fiction, it has to be supported in the fiction as well.

On the other hand, there's nothing contradicting your example of technological progress over a short period of time, so that example is much more relevant.
Set Bookmark
Henson
Sun, Mar 15, 2020, 8:24am (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Broken Pieces

@Gerontius

I would argue that, if a fictional universe is to undergo massive changes in a short time period, the fiction needs to adequately explain that change. It's not enough to simply say 'sometimes things change quickly' because that's unsatisfying storytelling for the audience invested in the universe.

(This is the problem I had with The Force Awakens as well: no explanation of how we got to this new (yet oddly familiar...) paradigm of Snoke/First Order/Resistance.)

I presume that, for people who reject this change in ST Picard, they feel that it wasn't adequately explained/justified in the fiction.
Set Bookmark
Henson
Thu, Mar 5, 2020, 5:13pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: The Impossible Box

@Dougie

'Head canon', not 'head cannon'.

My point was not to argue against cameras. My point was simply that an argument of Star Trek based around present day is highly flawed. Your argument about how the nature of holographic emitters might indicate visual sensors was a much better angle.

Also, my previous claims of 'head canon' weren't based on this particular argument of cameras, but on your claims around Star Trek capitalism.
Set Bookmark
Henson
Wed, Mar 4, 2020, 10:24pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: The Impossible Box

@Dougie

I know we've had this argument before, but I think it bears repeating: you can't assume that the world of Star Trek is the most probable outgrowth of our own. Our world may be one of ubiquitous cameras and sensors, but the world of Star Trek may not be so. Or it might. We have to judge primarily based upon the fiction, and less so upon how our Teslas work.
Set Bookmark
Henson
Sun, Mar 1, 2020, 6:03pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: The Impossible Box

@GreenBoots

"Do you think everyone just sits on this page refreshing every ten seconds?"

Wait, was I not supposed to do that?
Set Bookmark
Henson
Sun, Mar 1, 2020, 12:26pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: The Impossible Box

@Quincy
@Andy's Friend

This is a rather interesting discussion. If I may put in my two cents, I think I lean towards Quincy's view on intent. Surely, the intent of 'The Vengeance Factor' becomes rather moot if the execution works against that intent. At the same time, I find myself rather sympathetic to the other side of things as well.

Let me make a comparison: in Tommy Wiseau's The Room, the intent may very well have been to make a serious movie about a domestic drama (I know he claims otherwise, but other accounts indicate that this is probably an outright lie invented after the fact). The end result, of course, is so inept that the movie simply cannot be considered a serious drama. The intent is not sufficient.

However, the serious intent is also what makes it successful. Imagine if Wiseau had made the film with the intent of creating an enjoyably bad movie. I find it hard to imagine that this intent would not be perceived by the audience in the final product, and ruin the fun. We like The Room because it's trying to be serious, and completely failing; a movie trying to fail at being serious likely wouldn't have the same effect.

So what I'm wondering is: is intent most important when judging a story from outside of the fiction? That is, when viewing the story as a creation rather than an experience?
Set Bookmark
Henson
Fri, Feb 28, 2020, 5:42am (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: The Impossible Box

@PM

"Jammer'll 2.5 it though, because 'reasons' "

Yes, a review score is usually based on reasons. Good spot!
Set Bookmark
Henson
Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 5:28pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Stardust City Rag

@Dougie

I think I see where our problem lies. You are coming at this assuming that the history of Earth is the history of Star Trek (as you say, "The Federation grew out of earth and earth is us."). However, the reality is that both is and isn't true, at the same time.

The world of Star Trek comes from an Earth of the Crusades, of the Civil War, of Adolf Hitler, etc. But it's also a world where the genetically-enhanced caused a war in the 1990s. It's a world where Earth underwent a third World War, that came together after the discovery of alien life, that created a society that eliminated many of the social problems that we have, that eliminated currency, that created a space-faring Federation which has stood for over a hundred years. None of these things might ever happen in the real world, but in Star Trek, they did.

So in the fiction of Star Trek, Elon Musk might have never existed.

Yes, I find it unrealistic that humanity will ever successfully abandon currency. I find it foolishly (and beautifully) naive. But it's one of the premises of Star Trek. It's the basis for the fiction, all the way from the original crew. So while it may be an interesting intellectual exercise to posit what role capitalism will have in the shaping of society to come, it's irrelevant to how Star Trek has developed because capitalism doesn't exist in the Federation. Pointing out that this is unrealistic is like pointing out how magic in Harry Potter is unrealistic.

Likewise, you can't assume that the Federation will have 'white man power structures' based on present human societies, because the whole premise of the fiction is that humanity has moved past racial prejudice. (You might have a stronger argument for prejudice against alien species, like Romulans or Cardassians. But that's not what you were arguing.)

Now, regarding the Prime Directive...well, I will certainly concede that its implementation in the various series has not been consistent (although I'm not sure we can use Janeway as a fair representation, as her violations don't have any Federation power to back her up; no Federation hegemony in the delta quadrant, for sure.). My perspective is that the Federation has been sincere in its desire to not interfere (like when they didn't take sides during the Klingon Civil War, or when they tried to deal with situation in "Who Watches the Watchers?"). However, your interpretation of an intentionally toothless rule is not impossible. I don't know that it's the best interpretation, but it's something worth thinking about.
Set Bookmark
Henson
Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 11:20pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Stardust City Rag

@Dougie

"Was it’s 80s and 90s power structure hegemonic? Yes, it was reflective of American imperialism of the time, a direct mirror of Reagan/Bush Assininism."

How so? It seems to me that the Federation, with its emphasis on the Prime Directive, had explicitly been AGAINST the kind of imperialism you claim it represented.

"Top down trickle down white man power structures with token female, black, and “aliens” to represent foreigners, sometimes even in positions of power, but never equal or dominant in number, and always in proper proportion to our main cast. "

I fail to see how the racial proportions in the Starfleet have anything to do with whether or not the Federation is imperialist or holds a hegemony in the quadrant(s). I also have no idea what a 'white man power structure' is.

"The comment on trillionaires highlights a point about capitalist societies having alternatives to government providing all resources. "

Which is completely irrelevant given that the Federation was never a capitalist society, and yet has been highly successful for a long, long time. It didn't need trillionaires then, so there's no reason to suppose it needs them now.

This is why I say your comments sounded like head canon to me. You're making bold claims about the fiction, but giving scant relevant evidence to support them.

Now, when you talk about the evacuation of Romulus, I think you bring up some relevant questions. Does ST:P indicate that the Federation didn't even try, or that they were incapable? If they didn't try, why would that necessitate reorganization, rather than re-examination of their moral principles? What kind of entity is this new Federation? I don't really have the answers to these questions. Perhaps other commenters can help us discover them.
Set Bookmark
Henson
Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 8:01pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Stardust City Rag

@Dougie

The site you linked doesn't support the idea that the Federation wanted people to perceive them as a hegemonic power in the quadrant, and it certainly doesn't support anything about the Federation being unable to reorganize because of a lack of trillionaires. (Why a society that has successfully eliminated currency would need money to reorganize is beyond me. It's not even clear to me that they needed to reorganize!)

All it supports is that the only strong major powers of the Alpha Quadrant in the immediate aftermath of the Dominion War were the Federation and the Romulans. And since the Romulan supernova of Trek 2009 supports the idea that the Romulans would become a weaker power, you'd think this would put the Federation into a pretty strong position.

You say they wouldn't be able to "survive the intervening years as the hegemonic force in the galaxy". But why would you think this was even their goal? And if they are a hegemony simply due to the absence of other powers, why would this create any more strain on their resources than normal?
Set Bookmark
Henson
Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 5:46pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Stardust City Rag

@Dougie

This sounds like head canon to me.
Set Bookmark
Henson
Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 7:32pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Stardust City Rag

@Dave in MN

Yeah, I think a lot of people are starting to realize that episodic television actually had some significant strengths that haven't been much appreciated in the last 10-15 years. I think Entertainment Weekly's review of the first few episodes of Picard put it rather well:

"Serialization used to be exciting, back when Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was crafting a multi-season war epic. The three episodes of Picard I’ve seen confirm that serialization has become a haven for television’s hackiest writing, a way to justify stretching one limp story across empty take-forever hours."
Set Bookmark
Henson
Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 7:23pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Stardust City Rag

@phaedon

"My apologies.. I'm committed to the parallel universe where Enterprise and Voyager don't exist. I meant TNG in relation to TOS and DS9."

Ha!

Actually, I would argue that there isn't really a clear consensus on which of those three shows is considered the worst, or even best. I would personally argue TOS as the worst (or least good) but I know a LOT of people would take issue with me on that. Depends on who you ask.
Set Bookmark
Henson
Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 3:43pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Stardust City Rag

@phaedon

"...despite its campy style, episodic nature, and its reputation as the worst of all the shows, TNG..."

This sentence baffles me. Surely, the pre-2009 Trek show with the reputation as the worst of all the shows is Enterprise. Or even Voyager. TNG?
Set Bookmark
Henson
Fri, Feb 21, 2020, 11:35pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Stardust City Rag

@MidshipmanNorris

"Star Trek is what the writers decide it needs to be, in order to give the actors something interesting to play. And that, I feel, is the true "established philosophy" of Trek. Star Trek isn't really about 'the future' or 'exploring space' at all, but simply an excuse for writers/actors to flex, which I love seeing."

That's about as vague as you can possibly get. Is Star Trek really nothing more than a canvas on which to paint? Surely, the franchise has more definition than simply 'give actors something interesting to play'.

Naturally, 'Star Trek' will mean somewhat different things to different people. But that doesn't mean that 'Star Trek' can be literally anything, either.
Set Bookmark
Henson
Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 5:39pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

@Chrome

" it appears that the actress who played Airiam in season 1, now known as Lieutenant Nilsson, is taking over Airiam's post."

Wait...does this mean that the actress who played Airiam last episode got a nice bit of characterization, while the actress who played her all last season still doesn't have any character to act? Well, I guess it's a paycheck...

I've read some funny reddit posts joking about how next season Nilsson should be killed off, to be replaced by an Andorian played by the same actress. And then replaced again the next season. And repeat.
Set Bookmark
Henson
Tue, Mar 5, 2019, 9:48pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Light and Shadows

@Tim C

You silly fool. Sybok isn't just involved. Michael Burnham IS Sybok.
Next ►Page 1 of 2
▲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.