Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 2,920 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 117
Set Bookmark
Mon, Sep 20, 2021, 6:04pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S5: The Perfect Mate

@William B

Your use of the word "disentangling" has helped me to articulate what I see this story to be about at the real-life level (because Trek is pretty much always trying to be about real life in some way):

I think maybe this episode is not necessarily so much about gender roles as it is about the extent to which the person each of us becomes is determined by the company we keep. I see it more as posing a question than as settling on a single confident answer.

In Kamala, we see an example of utter social determinism. Even though she seems to break "free" from the path that was determined practically from the time of her birth, in that she does not end up bonding with and molding her personality around the desires of her prearranged mate, this very breaking away is still just as determined by an outside force, her contact with Picard. In a sense, she, as Kamala, does not quite "exist." She simply "is," and her being is utterly determined by the existence of her bondmate. I think that is what @Peter G. is getting at about her being an "empty shell."

Picard, on the other hand, exists to the nth degree. He is not merely the person his experiences and relationships have made him, but the person he has chosen to be, even in the face of all Kamala's charms and pheromones. He is tempted by her, but no matter what you think happened between them before morning, he does not yield to the ultimate temptation Kamala represents for him, the temptation to forsake all duty, his and hers alike.

Was Kamala falling for temptation when she allowed herself to be with Picard enough to bond with him instead of with her husband? I'm not sure of that. I think it was the closest a metamorph could come to exercising something resembling free will. She chose Picard, and invited him to spend the night, emphasizing that she was not asking him to make love to her, but refraining from mentioning that if he stayed long enough, she would be bonding with him, a far more significant intimacy than a one-night stand. I think I see her as knowing full well that if she spent that night in his company, she would bond, and the door would be forever closed to bonding with her future husband. It was her choice, and after she made it, she expressed no regrets.

She may have been an empty shell, but she chose what would fill her. She might in a sense be forever enslaved to the bond formed that night, but that slavery would be for her a sort of freedom, or at least the closest to freedom that it was ever in the cards for her to have.

She had no realistic choice of living a life "disentangled" from everyone. The part of her nature she could not change was that she would be entangled with someone. What she could do, and did do, was disentangle herself from her society's determination of what specific entanglement would define her identity, and instead entangle herself with a companion of her own choosing.

Is determinism still determinism when the individual herself determines who will determine who she is? That is the episode's question. We must each find our own answer.

As I wrote this, I found myself for the first time connecting this episode with the TOS episode, Elaan of Troius. The two stories seem so different, yet they are at one level the same story: The alien woman seems blown from one passion to the next and carries in her body the power to enslave men to that passion, but in a Starfleet captain she finds a sense of duty, and he finds in his duty a superpower no other man has shown her, the strength to walk away from her. It is painful, and it is difficult, but in the end, his duty to his ship is the "antidote" to her biological charms, and she comes away better for having known a man such as him. Her people will never know how much they owe him.
Set Bookmark
Mon, Sep 20, 2021, 10:29am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S5: The Perfect Mate

@Peter G.

It sounds to me as if you are making two points:

1) It isn't sexist because in the episode and in real life it's actually males who usually have to mold themselves to females' desires, not vice versa, and Kamala is a counterexample.

2) Kamala is behaving badly by throwing herself at men.

What I would say to 1 is that while the writers TELL us that among Kamala's species, male metamorphs are common, they choose not to SHOW us any male metamorphs at all, only the "rare" female metamorph. In their writing, no matter what they say in one throwaway line of exposition, 100% of the metamorphs we meet are (is) female. The throwaway line about male metamorphs makes no difference at all to the story, and could easily have been left out. I suspect it was added fairly late in revisions when someone said, "Hey, does this script sound a little sexist?"

I would also add that it's kind of a typical male perspective that "Men are the ones who have to do all the work to attract women. Women just get to stand there while we jump through hoops for them." I can assure you, the female perspective on this aspect of real life is very different. I think it's easy for each sex to assume that the other is not "jumping through hoops," and that what they see in the opposite sex is just the way they "naturally" are without any effort. No. That's not how it works. If it were true, the cosmetic industry would either have only men as its customers, or would grind to a halt. I think you have no idea how often women and girls are told to change everything they are if they want to attract a man. I'm willing to take it on faith that men and boys get such messages about attracting women. Can you take on faith, that we do, too, and that you are not all the work?

Regarding 2, I think the whole POINT is that "Her priority is to make men go crazy for her." This is not her free choice, as if she were deciding to be promiscuous for her own purposes, or, as you put it "irresponsible." It is what being a metamorph at this particular stage of her development MEANS. She is in the brief period when her biology is hard-wired to motivate her to seek the man with whom she will then bond for life. After that bonding, there will be no more throwing herself at every man who comes along, but until then, she has a biological imperative to enter into such a bond. What Picard calls "This thing you do with men" includes not only her willingness to become whatever her instincts tell her each man wants, but also her all-consuming motivation to do so, during this brief period of her life.

If she doesn't make use of that brief period to find a mate, then she will end up … Well, as she does end up: Bonded to a man who will not in fact be her mate, and living a lie with the man she marries.

I wonder, would she have been so much worse off if she had bonded with one of the rowdy miners and spent the rest of her life with him, as the woman he wanted her to be? Would whatever man she bonded with have been the "perfect mate" for her, not just her the perfect mate for him?

In a natural state, unmanipulated by political realities to serve a diplomatic purpose, I can see how metamorphism could lead to stable, happy families. The manipulation that she has been subject to from earliest childhood to make sure that she ends up in a marriage that serves her people's political purposes is perhaps not exactly "slavery," but it is not "freedom," either.
Set Bookmark
Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 10:00pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: DS9 S2: Second Sight

I agree with those who have commented on Kiley's skilled performance, but I'm afraid I have heard his voice as the narrator of so many nature programs, that it was hard for me to connect that voice with a fictional character. I kept waiting for him to start talking about how the rekindled star's radiation would affect some rare species of insect.
Set Bookmark
Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 2:32pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers


It's true that there are some fairly reasonable compliments that he accepts with grace. In a sense, just being a captain is Picard's acceptance of the high praise Starfleet has given for his leadership ability, ability he knows he has and is willing to exercise.

But I do think there is a qualitative difference between accepting praise commensurate with one's personal abilities and being "worshipped" as a being of seemingly limitless power, or at least more power than you are convinced you actually have. The Captain Picard Day scene strikes me as an example of the latter, and he's uncomfortable with it even when the children themselves are not physically present, as he holds up a drawing that renders him like a body builder and says some of them seem to have a distorted impression of him. Even though he is uncomfortable with it, he is persuaded by Troi to go along with it, because such hero worship of an authority figure is developmentally appropriate, even when it is not strictly accurate.

I think Mintakans' worship of the powerful beings who briefly touched their lives could have been developmentally appropriate, too, and as long as the Federation didn't leverage it into continuing undue influence, they would have kept on developing just fine.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Sep 15, 2021, 10:50pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

@Peter G.

And I suppose in the end, Picard is what the writers made him, and he "did" whatever the writers say he did.

Also, I just wanted to correct myself. Captain Picard Day was not in "Disaster." It was in "The Pegasus."
Set Bookmark
Wed, Sep 15, 2021, 6:26pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

I find it interesting that in the first-season episode "Justice," as much as the Starfleet personnel disagree with the Edo system of jurisprudence and bristle in the face of the power of the Edo "God," nonetheless they accept that the Edo do worship the transdimensional ship above their planet, and when Data reports that the beings themselves are aware of the worship and consider it both natural and harmless at the Edo's current stage of development, PIcard shows no sign of disagreeing.

In Justice, what Picard DOES disagree with and actively discourages is the worship of himself. It strikes me as very like his discomfort with "Captain Picard Day" for the children in "Disaster." In light of these two episodes, his resistance in this one to being worshipped as "The Picard" strikes me as being more about himself than about the Mintakans, or at least more about himself than he is admitting (probably even to himself). I see this as a kind of false humility. Authentic humility acknowledges truth.

The Mintakans have made a logical inference based on their limited knowledge: The old beliefs, once thought backward, in beings unimaginably more powerful than themselves obviously have some truth to them. They are not incorrect in this assessment, even in-universe; the Federation really is technologically advanced beyond their current imagining.

Many natural events, too, could potentially have led them to make such an inference at some point, even if the accidental encounter with Starfleet had never occurred. If left to their own devices after that incident, I think they would ultimately have devised a fairly logical belief system around "The Picard." That is the road they are already on. Picard sees any such belief system as going backwards on that road, but there is no going backwards. This incident just put a twist in their road that would probably keep leading the same general direction. It happens.

False humility like Picard's also happens. Picard as a character is fairly idealized, and it's clear that he is often the mouthpiece for the writers' own opinions. But like all the best-written characters, he is fallible, and sometimes selfish. He is what he is. Given the other episodes I mentioned, I think it is quite consistent with his character to reject worship and to convince himself that this rejections is for the Mintakans' own good, rather than for his own.

I suspect the writing team also convinced themselves that what Picard was saying was right. That's why they had him say it. But sometimes, fictional characters do have a "life" of their own, and Picard is living that life here. I disagree with him. I think he should have taken the advice to accept the worship and tell people with the authority of his exalted position to be kind to each other, to live in peace with their neighbors (including neighbors who did not worship the Picard), and to trust whatever their observation and logic could tell them about the universe. In a thousand years, it's unlikely that such a twist in their road would have led very far from where they were already headed.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Sep 14, 2021, 8:16pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: DS9 S1: In the Hands of the Prophets

@William B

You mentioned, "I can't think of any times when Kirk did see there being beings worshiped as gods where Kirk accepted that belief."

In Bread and Circuses, Kirk and the writers are very friendly to religion, even if only on Prime Directive grounds, with more than an implication by the end of the episode that the specific religion in question was Christianity. When Kirk was tentatively asking if there had been stories of "men from the stars," he was told that the stars are the light of the Sun (SPOILER TO COME) shining from the heavens, so he backed off that line of questioning, I believe with a deferential, "Of course." Even though Kirk knows very well what stars are in a physical sense, he feels no need to contradict the natives' theological interpretation of their significance. More than that, when Flavius expresses doubts about all men being brothers, as taught by the religious group he has joined, Kirk tells him to "go on believing it."

Back aboard ship, when Uhura points out that the "sun" Flavius' group was worshipping was "not the sun in the sky, but the Son of God," Kirk refers not to Jesus (an ordinary name), but to the religious title "Christ."

Whether he himself is supposed to be a believer or not, he is portrayed as someone willing to use the religious terms of believers when talking to or even about them and to refrain from contradicting their beliefs, in some circumstances. I suspect he might well have been willing, if encountered with the Bajoran situation, to refer to the wormhole aliens as "the Prophets" when speaking with or even just in the presence of Bajorans.

I think it would have been very interesting (and was a missed opportunity) for this episode to show Keiko struggling with whether to accommodate children whose parents had taught them to call Sisko not "Commander," or "sir," but "Emissary" (and perhaps when he enters a room to stand up and bow in his direction!). I think Kirk would have been willing to do so, though perhaps with the exaggerated politeness reserved for a term he did not personally believe but was just choosing not to make an issue of.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Sep 12, 2021, 11:06pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: VOY S3: Rise

I remembered not liking this episode, but I made myself watch it again, thinking perhaps I missed something. Alas, no. I still don't like it.

I just find it hard to get excited about "The Galileo Seven" in an elevator.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Sep 12, 2021, 10:10pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TOS S1: The Man Trap


I have always taken the "every man sees the same woman differently" (remember, the crewman who ends up dead sees a COMPLETELY different woman) as an indication that at least part of the illusion is some psychological/telepathic manipulation.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Sep 12, 2021, 1:46pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: LD S2: An Embarrassment of Dooplers

Ah, cool. I didn't make it that far in Enterprise. Must be a durable ship if it's still in service over 200 years later! That would be like, what, Napoleonic-era schooners still being in use today?
Set Bookmark
Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 11:13am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: LD S2: An Embarrassment of Dooplers

>Was... was that a Battlestar Pegasus also docked at the station?

That was an Andorian Kumari-class battle cruiser, as seen in Enterprise.
Set Bookmark
Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 2:44am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: LD S2: An Embarrassment of Dooplers

Was... was that a Battlestar Pegasus also docked at the station?

It's probably not a good sign when the easter eggs and references are the most notable things in the episode. (Although the Shelby cameo made me happy; it was SUCH a waste that her character was never brought back in the TNG/DS9 era.)
Set Bookmark
Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 1:57am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: LD S2: An Embarrassment of Dooplers

I really liked last week and this week's episodes. Season 2 is finally starting to gell for me.

I'm a little bummed that Jammer didn't like this episode much at all. Not because I need a reviewer to agree with me, but I find LD such a charming little show that I wish he got more pleasure out of it.

Can I defend the Doopler jokes? Not really; yes, they're derivative and I saw where the episode was going as soon as they introduced the concept, and the show can be pretty dumb at times...but all I know is that while I have zero desire to watch the next seasons of Picard and Discovery, I'm excited for each new episode of Lower Decks, even at those times I haven't liked prior week's episodes.
Set Bookmark
Proud Capitalist Pig
Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 9:53am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

"If anything this is a comment on the fact that women overwhelmingly seek riches when husband shopping. And men seek youth and beauty when wife shopping.
But of course we all know that rich men can sometimes be assholes that are control freaks and trophy wives are frequently selfish, vain and useless. So this episode is telling us we will all be better off if we don't set out sights so high."

Well stated summary, Greg.

Judging from the comments above it seems that folks tend to judge this episode with their "2021 eyes," which I'm not sure is fair to it. An interesting thing to think about is that wife-shopping and husband-shopping hasn't changed much since, judging by what's on reality television these days. We all know that plenty of women (and men, by the way) would love to take those magical pills to make them look more beautiful if we're being honest with ourselves.

BUT also, I think the main point that "Mudd's Women" tries to make is that there's no shame in individual choices. (And by the way, it doesn't begin to address that there's also a third option--obviously a wife can be both the stereotypical trophy wife and still "cook and clean"). Sure, sometimes "choice" is a privilege. Lots of people have no choice. But that's another topic, and another episode.

Not much more to say. The episode is clunky, Carmel's portrayal of Mudd is obnoxious, and the writing is pedantic (Kirk states at least three times that he can't figure out why these women are having such a hypnotic effect on the male crew members--My God, nights on the Enterprise much be lonely).

But I see what they were trying to say.

By the way, I need my computer to angrily huff, "INCORRECT" to check my work, just like that magic lie detector on the Enterprise. Do your stuff, Google.

Best line: "You'll find out that ship's captains are already married, girl, to their vessels." -- Mudd

My Grade: C-
Set Bookmark
Chris Lopes
Tue, Sep 7, 2021, 11:17pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: LD S2: Mugato, Gumato

"We need more of that kind of thing and fewer masturbating mugatos."

That's not a phase I ever thought would have to be uttered.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Sep 7, 2021, 6:28pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: DS9 S2: Profit and Loss

I just watched this and I was honestly entertained.

But now, reading the review, I'm thinking back and it does strike me as odd that Political Prisoners were released from the Brig by the Station Constable and no red alerts were given by Toran and/or anyone else

This would've turned into a hostage situation on later DS9. Here it's treated like the Station and the Cardassian ship are just asleep and their laundromats say "Sorry We're Closed."

That's not how you run a space ship or a space station, no, heavens no
Set Bookmark
Sat, Sep 4, 2021, 9:57am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: VOY S2: Non Sequitur

For a Brannon Braga script, "Non Sequitur" is surprisingly ordinary. Braga's known for his "mind bending" plots, but here his central conceit is rather tame.

I was also surprised David Livingston directed this; it's a strangely slack and lifeless episode by his standards, despite the gorgeous set design here and there.

As I understand it, "Non Sequitur" was intended to be the big Ensign Kim episode of the season, but it unfortunately can't touch the vastly superior "Emanations" in season 1. And as others have commented above, Kim doesn't seem able to carry an episode on his own. He's just not that interesting a character, and never rises above the level of ordinary nice guy.
Set Bookmark
Sat, Sep 4, 2021, 9:40am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TOS S1: The Enemy Within

Capitalism "creates jobs" in the same way feudalism creates jobs. It violently - often genocidally or via forced expulsion - forces people from common land, into market relations, and imposes artificial poverty and scarcity.

And capitalism's "economic growth" has always been a red herring. All major studies show that rates of return on capital outpace growth, and have done so for centuries; ie a tiny minority of humanity - those with an artificial monopoly on credit, credit creation, or land - receive this growth. This is why 80 percent of humanity lives in poverty, why over 2 thirds of humanity lives on less than 10 dollars a day, why most of this 2 thirds live on less than 1 dollar 25, why four out of every five dollars of wealth generated in 2017 ended up in the pockets of the richest one percent while the poorest half of humanity got nothing, and why 82 percent of the wealth generated in 2018 went to the richest 1 percent of the global population.

So this "growth" is captured by a minority, and most work is stolen, needless and utterly wasted, as it goes into paying artificially imposed interests embedded in every dollar in circulation and so hidden in every purchase or payment; a kind of covert, invisible rentier economy existing embedded within money itself, and below the surface rentier economy (for example the prices of everything we buy is inflated by about 45% - a kind of stealth tax on disposable income toward costs for capital - while about half of our taxes are lost to interest [we would pay 50% less tax were there no cost for capital], the end result being that roughly 50-75% of your average human's gross income is lost to interests caused by the banking sector's artificial monopolies on credit creation, banks being the original "alpha capitalists", whose chief commodity is the money we use to mediate all sub transactions).

And as recent studies by economists like Tim Jackson, or papers ( by the World Economic Review says, $111 of growth is required for every $1 reduction in poverty. On current trends, it would thus take over 200 years to ensure that everyone receives as little as $5 a day. By this point, average per capita income will have reached a rediculous $1million a year, and the economy will be 175 times bigger than it is today. This is itself undesirable if not impossible (environmental collapse is engendered by these escalating production and so heat rates- capitalism historically requires a 2.9 exponential increase in energy consumption - and so heat release - per annum).

So the idea that this growth "improves the stands of living" is a lie. The system artificially creates poverty, requires 80 percent of humanity to be an underclass, requires impossible and ecocidal growth rates to maintain its debt ponzi, and keeps this global majority in poverty for centuries.

The idea that capitalism can magically "create value" is itself a kind of anti scientific lie, as it rubs up against the limitations imposed by thermodynamic laws. The total order of a thing is always less than the energy needed to create it, and a commoditys creation always engenders greater chaos/entropy. The amount of money in circulation is itself always less than the debts owed within the system at any point in time (money is in a sense an avatar of energy and follows entropic laws- see ecological economists like Herman Daly). No amount of growth will escape this contradiction. Debts will always outpace growth. Profits at X will always create poverty/indebtedness at Y. And the difference will always be placed upon the poor, future generations, or the biosphere (indeed, UN reports show that no major sector is profitable once environmental externalities/costs are tabulated).

Beyond all this, you have the various old contradictions of capitalism to content with. For example, as workers are inherently paid less than the aggregate worth of the goods they produce, the system will always tend toward unemployment, bankruptcy, and crises of overproduction and underconsumption. Like a game of musical chairs, this guarantees things like recessions, business cycles, structural unemployment, and an underclass existing, against their will.

The Invisible Hands of the market will one day be regarded like we regard Thor, Zeus and the Abrahamic Gods; a shared delusion, anti-scientific, and a kowtowing to psychotics.
Set Bookmark
Proud Capitalist Pig
Fri, Sep 3, 2021, 11:51am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TOS S1: The Enemy Within


You said, "This can also, obviously, be overlayed as the need for capitalism to actually create jobs, economic growth, improve the standard of living etc. while socialists would try to dismantle/besmirch all the benefits by pointing to some of those left behind (as a facade for more nefarious objectives -- but that's a different subject)."

Hey, you and I would get along just fine! I originally wrote two more paragraphs in my comment, one of which directly mentioned what you just said. Then I read it over and decided it might not be pertinent/appropriate to start going off on huge political tangents in the commentary under a guy's Star Trek episode review, but what do I know, I'm a newcomer to this board. Thanks for your thoughts!
Set Bookmark
Fri, Sep 3, 2021, 12:46am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: ENT S3: Extinction

[[Episodes like that...and they wondet why people think mrna vaccines will alter their DNA...sigh....
Set Bookmark
Thu, Sep 2, 2021, 10:06pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S7: Thine Own Self

This episode brought to mind the real-life “Goiânia accident” in which a region in Brazil was exposed to radiation after some guys dismantled chemo equipment for scrap and passed around the glowing radioactive part as a novelty, not understanding what it was.
Set Bookmark
Thu, Sep 2, 2021, 2:20am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: LD S2: Mugato, Gumato

So far the cold opens this season are the best part of the episodes. Anbo-jitsu (not how it's spelled, apparently, but oh well!) was a great deep cut, and Shax politely waiting till their time was up while Mariner beat the tar out of them was hilarious.

Rest of the episode was... meh? "Last Outpost"-style Ferengi indeed. The meta joke doesn't make it less lazy or weird to use them as such simplistic villains at this point. And the Mariner "black ops" mystery was unconvincing and ignored the characters' friendships. Even Boimler and Rutherford aren't that gullible.

I hope they find more of a way to milk humour and suspense out of actual character development, like they did with Mariner's secret parentage back in season 1.

Still entertaining, but hopefully the season will get stronger as it goes on!
Set Bookmark
Proud Capitalist Pig
Thu, Sep 2, 2021, 12:08am (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TOS S1: The Enemy Within

We're all conditioned to hate the Wild Man in our modern 21st century society. We put him in a box, deny he exists, blame what he does on other people, but we'd be damned to admit we need him. And to me that's the central message of "The Enemy Within." The trick to the Wild Man--our unfettered passionate side--isn't to ignore him, but placate him with safe outlets because without him, we suffer as we aren't complete.

The two Kirks here--let's call them "Wild-Kirk" and "Meek-Kirk" because "Good-Kirk" and "Evil-Kirk" belies the point that the show is trying to make--start to crash and burn without each other because we see that a leader can't function without a little reptilian hostility and alertness, and also see that the things missing in a perpetual psychopath, beyond any hope or help, are temperance and compassion--all this brilliantly spelled out by Spock. Meek-Kirk becomes an utterly ineffectual commander without any strength of will, and Wild-Kirk a raging, raping, dangerous threat to his crewmates. Spock essentially states that both the Meek and Wild sides are present in everyone--the danger is imbalance.

I liked the personal stakes here. The build-up to the crew realizing what's happened to their Captain is brief but tense. There's a disturbing, heart-wrenching scene when Janice confronts Meek-Kirk when she believes it was he that assaulted her, and another crew member confirms it (I know I've made fun of Janice before, but this episode did have me feeling for her.) Janice was clearly traumatized, and Meek-Kirk's expression after she left the room was absolutely devastating. William Shatner really sold the captain's anguish--dismay that Janice was attacked, and horror that anyone could believe he'd be capable of such an act.

The episode got repetitive and obvious after a while, but it's the best episode yet of this show. I cracked up when Wild-Kirk was beamed in the first time. That hammy expression of Shatner's, coupled with the ridiculous music, was 60's Gold.

Best line: "You can't afford the luxury of being anything less than perfect." -- Spock to Meek-Kirk

My Grade: B+
Set Bookmark
Proud Capitalist Pig
Wed, Sep 1, 2021, 9:07pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: TNG S1: Justice

Here are ten ways to have fun with “Justice” instead of just watching it (which isn’t fun):

1.) UNNECESSARY CENSORSHIP -- If there’s one television episode that’s crying out for an edited version with plenty of bleeps, it’s this one, particularly in the first couple of acts when nearly every verb actually *is* a double entendre. It works beautifully.

Favorite results / examples:

- Rivan: “Come! Our people will want to [bleep] you.”
- Liator: “Rivan, perhaps they can’t [bleep].”
- Wesley: “Can’t [bleep]?! Of course we can [bleep]! Right, Commander?”

- Rivan: “Everyone! We’ve [bleep] the visitors.”

- Data: “Enterprise to object off our starboard bow. Request that you [bleep] yourself.”

- God Globe: “DO YOU PLAN TO [bleep] LIFE-FORMS HERE?”

- Worf: “For what we consider love, sir, I would [bleep] a Klingon woman.”

- Wesley (worried): “Captain… are you going to let them [bleep] me?”

2.) DRINKING GAME: Take a shot whenever you hear the term “Prime Directive.” Trust me, you’ll be blackout-stupid halfway through and won’t have to slog through the rest of it (or at least you won’t remember it).

3.) FUN WITH IMDB -- Search for what the vaunted guest stars of “Justice” have been up to lately. I’d be amazed if any of these bargain-basement schlubs are still acting.

4.) THIS LONG AND THIS THICK -- Watch Wesley’s description of a baseball bat again, and you’ll realize immediately what he’s *actually* talking about. For God's sake, Worley.

5.) SECOND OPINIONS -- Jamahl's review is sublime. But I’ll bet there are forums and other review sites out there that trash this episode equally inventively.

6.) SPEED IT UP -- When you watch it at Netflix’s 1.5x-speed, it’s far more entertaining and obviously doesn’t last as long.

7.) THREATEN TO SLOW IT DOWN -- I’ve warned my children about the best punishment ever: forcing them to watch “Justice” at Netflix’s 0.5x-speed the next time one of them one of them needs to be grounded. Now *that’s* justice.

8.) WIL WHEATON’S COMMENTARY -- Apparently this exists. Years later, Wil Wheaton watched "Justice" live, recording his commentary and memories of filming it. I definitely think I might listen to it. [Honorable mention: Watch the movie “Stand By Me” instead of this episode. Wheaton is not as bad of an actor as you may think he is.]

9.) TALLY IT UP -- Count how many times the word “God” is spoken in “Justice.” Then count how many times the word “God” is spoken in the horror movie “Jesus Camp.” Divide each count by running time and see how the percentages hold up.

10.) MAKE A LIST OF YOUR OWN -- Trust me. This was therapeutic. Special thanks to my daughter for contributing #8.

Best Line: "Life itself is an exercise in exceptions." -- Picard.

My Grade: D-
Set Bookmark
Thu, Aug 26, 2021, 10:56pm (UTC -5) | 🔗
Re: LD S2: We'll Always Have Tom Paris

Probably the weakest of the season for me so far. Neither the A or B story grabbed me, and I was really disappointed they brought back Bajoran Worf. I know they were satirizing the Spock/Data/etc. "characters never stay dead" trope, but come on! He got the glorious death Worf always wanted, and I was impressed they were willing to kill off characters in the first place. Having him stick around now feels pretty cheap and underwhelming.

The Tom Paris stuff was amusing (especially "VOY!"), and I liked Boimler's jab "all the way down to Kim." Even after making it back to the Alpha Quadrant, poor Kim is probably STILL an ensign. (Still can't believe he never got promoted despite his seven years of bridge duty, but they loved the status quo way too much on that show.)

And Mariner served on DS9? We need some flashbacks or guest stars stat. Always happy to see the best Trek show get some acknowledgment.
Next ►Page 1 of 117
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2021 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. Terms of use.