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: 26,088 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 1,044
Set Bookmark
Tim C
Fri, May 14, 2021, 7:07pm (UTC -5)
Re: MAND S1: Chapter 2: The Child

I enjoyed the first episode of the show and was hooked by the Baby Yoda reveal, but the opening sandcrawler chase scene in this one was what made me sit up and pay attention. It was the most exciting action scene I'd witnessed in Star Wars since that first Millenium Falcon chase scene* in The Force Awakens, and it was being done on TV!

I have really, really enjoyed the show's back-to-basics episodic approach to storytelling in the era of streaming epics with plodding, convoluted plots and juggling multiple character arcs through overlong runtimes.

*A scene so fun they tried to duplicate it in each subsequent sequel to *severely* diminishing returns
Set Bookmark
Dave in MN
Fri, May 14, 2021, 5:50pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S1: Emissary

Yet they were in the Alpha Quadrant for 7 episodes of TNG.

It would be 100% plausible if the Borg had apoeared in DS9.
Set Bookmark
Dave in MN
Fri, May 14, 2021, 3:23pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S1: Emissary

I never understood why the Borg wast a bigger focus on Voyager than DS9.

I would have LOVED to see Sisko tango with the Borg again at least once. Volcanically angry Sisko is the best Sisko.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Fri, May 14, 2021, 3:19pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Rightful Heir

@Mal
Before the Ottoman Empire there was the Eastern Roman Empire and Constantinople was the capitol of that for more than a thousand years and the ERE controlled Anatolia for the most part until the 13th century. Basically until the Forth Crusade. A thousand years ago there were no Turks in Anatolia. That started with the Seljuk Turks at the end of the 11th century. I guess the Bulgars are technically Turkic but they never conquered Constantinople or invaded Anatolia.
And apart from Seleukos Nicator himself and Antiochos the Great none of the Seleucid Kings actually moved past the Hellespont with significant troops and Antiochos was beaten badly by the Romans when he did.

I would say that the straits of Gibraltar and the Muslim invasion in the 8th century stopped by Charles Martel would fit far better if you want to use a European example . Without the victory at tours we would all be Muslims today. Alhamdullilah :)
Set Bookmark
Booming
Fri, May 14, 2021, 2:55pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S3: That Hope Is You, Part 2

@Peter and Mal
As I said, I'm giving you the scientific perspective and those are the definitions widely shared among the political science community. You can of course define it however you like.
My scientific opinion is that there actually never was a totalitarian state. Even Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia which are often the examples discussed when talking about these things were not really controlling everything. In a real totalitarian state every action is started by the state, that means international trade as well. Every aspect of society is totally controlled by the state. There is no personal initiative.
It is no coincidence that in all the big governmental system datasets (Freedom House, Polity 4, Democracy index) there is no category called totalitarian. These are all forms of autocracies even North Korea.
Totalitarian is more of a popular term. Scientists barely use it. They probably more often discuss if it should be used at all.

@Mal
" China's president is elected by less than three thousand people. That makes China an Oligopoly - not a democracy."
I don't know where you get your definitions from but according to that definition every leader who is not elected directly would rule an oligarchy, like Great Britain, Switzerland or Germany. In your view only presidential democracies with a direct voting system would be democracies.

The Federation seems to be a parliamentary democracy. At least if we believe Sisko.
Set Bookmark
Mal
Fri, May 14, 2021, 2:13pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S3: That Hope Is You, Part 2

@Rahul, there is nothing to indicate that the Federation President is elected by the citizens of the Federation in some kind of popular referendum.

Lots of Presidents are elected. That doesn't make the country a democracy. China's president is elected by less than three thousand people. That makes China an Oligopoly - not a democracy.

Now, are you telling me you think Jaresh-Inyo was elected by vastly more people than the President of China?
Set Bookmark
Mal
Fri, May 14, 2021, 1:16pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S3: That Hope Is You, Part 2

Totalitarian versus Autocracy for beginners:

Autocracy - rule by 1 person (rule by an autocrat - autocrat means self rule, a person who has taken all power to rule by himself). This is as against to an Oligopoly (rule by a few), or a Democracy (rule by the populace).

Totalitarian - everything is within the state’s authority (the state has Total control). The opposite would be limited government (where certain matters are outside the state’s control).

An example of a totalitarian autocracy would be a absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia. The State is ruled by 1 man (autocracy) and that man has authority over all matters (totalitarian).

China is not autocratic, it is not ruled by 1 man. There is a committee that controls that country, making it an Oligopoly. It is, of course, totalitarian - the state has authority over everything. So China is a totalitarian oligopoly.

Fun fact, a Democracy can also be totalitarian. All that means is that there is no limit to what the state can do after the people select it. The most famous example was the First French Republic. If you ever find yourself in a Totalitarian Democracy, make sure to have lots of brioche.

https://www.britannica.com/story/did-marie-antoinette-really-say-let-them-eat-cake

On the other hand, an autocracy need not be totalitarian.

Many modern monarchies are constitutional, meaning they may be ruled by 1 person (autocracy), but the state does not have power over every single issue (not total). Go back a few hundred years and several autocracies were still not totalitarian, because at the very least, the autocrat did not have power over matters run by the church.

I now return you to Star Trek, in which, we must remember, we never see an election, and have no reason to believe the Federation is a Democracy. If anything, the Federation appears to be a totalitarian bureaucracy,

https://www.startrek.com/news/the-star-trek-communist-hopes-star-trek-can-inspire-a-real-revolution

wtf?!
Set Bookmark
Mal
Fri, May 14, 2021, 12:25pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Rightful Heir

@Tom said, "So all the established species in Trek had real-life analogues then? So what were the Cardassians? The Ferengi? Borg?”

I’m going to go with what @Booming said, that "Most species are amalgamations.” DS9 isn’t SW:Episode 1 ;) That said, the Ferengi are pretty obvious. The word “Ferengi” means "foreigner" in general, and refers to the Frankish people in particular. The Borg are clearly Norwegian. And everyone knows the Cardassians are Armenian but currently live in LA! Thanks guys, I’ll be here all night :-)

@Peter G., maybe we could agree to a certain extent on the Eastern Roman Empire or the Persian Empire. You’re right that both deified their rulers, and in DS9, the Founders were clearly running a pre-monotheistic domain.

So, @Booming, I was actually going for a time period long before the Ottomans. The geographic region is probably similar to what you and @Peter G. are pointing to. Instead of “Turks” I could have said “Anatolian". And FWIW, I don’t think Anatolia had a fixed capital at Byzantium. If anything, the Turks - both now, and a thousand years ago - favor the Galatian capital, while the Seleucids used Antioch. Either way, that's a fair distance from the worm hole.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Fri, May 14, 2021, 9:22am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S1: Emissary

It also sets up Sisko's arc of working through this trauma and slowly becoming open for another deep and meaningful relationship.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Fri, May 14, 2021, 2:16am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S3: That Hope Is You, Part 2

to add:
Theocracies, absolute monarchies, one party dictatorships, oligarchies are all different forms of autocracies.
I'm not conveying personal opinion here. I'm giving you broadly accepted definitions in political science.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Fri, May 14, 2021, 2:09am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S3: That Hope Is You, Part 2

@Peter
Jason was on the right track.
Your definition is not good. To give a simple example of what a totalitarian country would never allow. Studying abroad. Doing business abroad. Private property.

To take a line from Ahrendt's definition: "Total domination does not allow for free initiative in any field of life."

China is a pretty oppressive autocracy.
Here is the democracy index (by the economist intelligence unit). As you may notice, they don't even have a totalitarian classification.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Let's keep in mind that Western nations, especially the USA, are in a global struggle with China and that this influences how the media portrays them and our perception. For example, a few days ago 50 people were killed by government forces in Colombia and it barely made the news.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pboh1SFk6TM
(Just read the smartest guys in the room again;)
Set Bookmark
Eskimo
Thu, May 13, 2021, 9:01pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S2: Vanishing Point

I CANNOT BELIEVE this is rated so high. So so so wrong. This was absolutely terrible. So bad I was offended at the end that they would seem this showable.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Thu, May 13, 2021, 4:28pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S3: That Hope Is You, Part 2

@Omicron
"Are you seriously claiming that present China is not totalitarian? Come on now..."
From a political science perspective it is not. It is actually far from totalitarian. No serious political scientist will call China a totalitarian country.

"I'd like to remind you that historically, this so-called "solution to inequality" never worked. You take away the "money = power" equation and something else will fill its place."
Not to turn this into a lengthy argument that really has nothing to do with Star Trek. Redistribution works in many ways and I'm not for abandoning the monetary system or money as an incentive. I'm not a communist. I personally would say that nobody should have more than maybe 50 million € maybe less. Anything else is threatening to a democratic society. Apart from that we need a very transparent state but as I said, I cannot explain my thinking in one or two paragraphs. :)
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, May 13, 2021, 2:57pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S3: That Hope Is You, Part 2

@Jason R.

Your hope is misplaced.

The only reason these "true believers" exist in such numbers is that there's an efficient system of propaganda that generates them and fuels their fire. The vast majority of them were ordinary people just a couple of years ago. And when the current craziness ends (which *will* happen eventually) they will drop their fanaticism just as easily as they adopted it.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, May 13, 2021, 2:56pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S3: That Hope Is You, Part 2

@Booming
"As an adage, only Stalinist Russia and Maoist China were totalitarian, everything after that was/is just good old autocracy."

Are you seriously claiming that present China is not totalitarian? Come on now...

"Being a socialist I'm against people accumulating riches in general but, for different reasons, I'm also against extreme riches because of the danger they pose to a democratic society. In the end money is just power and the rich are getting richer."

I'd like to remind you that historically, this so-called "solution to inequality" never worked. You take away the "money = power" equation and something else will fill its place. In the end, the powerful just become more powerful, and those who used to be "poor" become even more oppressed.

In short:

Money itself isn't the problem. The real problem is twofold:

(1) There are almost no balances that keep the super-powerful from abusing their power.

(2) Our society currently rewards people based on how well they manipulate others, rather than on their actual contributions. This is true both for monetary wealth and political power. The way our society is currently structured, it is virtually *guaranteed* that all the worst scumbags will float to the top.

It is these two things that need to change, whether by official legislation or by changing social norms. And limiting the accumulation of material wealth isn't going to get us any closer to these goals.
Set Bookmark
Lewd Mangabey
Thu, May 13, 2021, 9:44am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S7: Author, Author

My feelings are very much in line with Kristen's excellent analysis above (almost 10 years ago). This was a pleasantly enjoyable "missed opportunity" episode for me (Voyager has oh so many of these, didn't it?), and I'm shocked by Jammer's 4-star sendup. I'd give it 2.5 stars or maybe 3 if leaning on the episode's comedic value.

I discovered Jammer's reviews as an excellent study guide in rewatching the series: my feelings usually align with his pretty closely; as a consequence, with each season I've opened up, I eagerly scan for and make a mental note of his 3.5 and 4 star reviews. These are the ones to make time for and WATCH watch, rather than having on in the background while cooking, cleaning, etc.

Seeing this 4-star gem just before the end of the show, I looked forward to it with considerable anticipation. And I was sorely disappointed. It was poorly paced; it superficially toyed with one of the core "sci fi nuggets" of the series in the Doctor's sentience, rights, etc. without offering any insight or depth; it was painfully derivative of past Voyager and TNG fare. And the final scene, far from touching, insulted viewers' intelligence: where are the hollow emitters for these Mark 1s? Why are they slaving away by hand in this hellish mine with techniques and tools that would have been outdated 80 years ago? Are they doing hard time?

Aaaanyway, Jammer, if you're listening, I want my money back!

In all seriousness, I've really taken a lot from reading these reviews so many years after the show first came out. I've also really enjoyed reading this extensive archive of other viewers' reactions. With my rewatch drawing to a close, I dunno if I'll have cause to post again, but I do want to say a big THANK YOU to Jammer for organizing this treasure trove of content. My words can't express the fullness gratitude (nor can my hundreds of page views and the advertising revenue they've hopefully generated). Peace and long life.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Thu, May 13, 2021, 8:47am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Rightful Heir

True. The Dominion is more like an apartheid autocracy. The term totalitarianism is problematic as is the term absolutism. For similar reasons. What is commonly seen as the dividing line between totalitarian systems and autocratic systems is the treatment of the people. In totalitarian regimes people are "activated" meaning that they have to be indoctrinated or show their loyalty constantly. In Autocracies the population is supposed to be passive. If you don't cause problems, then the autocratic authority will not bother you if you don't show up at the local dictator appreciation meeting.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Thu, May 13, 2021, 6:49am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Rightful Heir

Most species are amalgamations of several countries at various points in time.
Set Bookmark
Tom
Thu, May 13, 2021, 6:10am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Rightful Heir

So all the established species in Trek had real-life analogues then? So what were the Cardassians? The Ferengi? Borg?
Set Bookmark
Booming
Thu, May 13, 2021, 2:06am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Rightful Heir

@Mal
The Dominion was like the Ottoman Empire?? Are you sure? So the Jem Hadar are the Janisarries?! The capital of the Dominion wasn't in the wormhole?! The Turkish elite certainly had no "we don't kill each other" code, for the ruling family it was kind of the opposite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fratricide#Ottoman_Empire
I demand proof! :)
Set Bookmark
Booming
Thu, May 13, 2021, 1:54am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S3: That Hope Is You, Part 2

@Omicron
good points. As an adage, only Stalinist Russia and Maoist China were totalitarian, everything after that was/is just good old autocracy.
I also agree with your analysis of the oligarchy fortifying itself. Being a socialist I'm against people accumulating riches in general but, for different reasons, I'm also against extreme riches because of the danger they pose to a democratic society. In the end money is just power and the rich are getting richer.
25 years ago the richest person had 13 billion $ and there were ~300 billionaires in the world
Today it is 180 billion $ for the richest person and there are ~2750 billionaires.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkhLvJ6RSKc
Set Bookmark
Mal
Wed, May 12, 2021, 10:34pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Rightful Heir

Life imitates art - the Russians/Klingons are back!

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/archaeology/a36383243/russia-wants-to-clone-ancient-army/

In my write-ups for the TOS episodes "The Enterprise Incident" and "Balance of Terror", I explained how for Star Trek writers over the decades, the Romulans have stood in for China, the Vulcans for Japan, and Klingons are Russia.

[For students of history who love DS9, the Dominion was the Turks ("orientals"), and the worm hole is the Hellespont.]

With "Rightful Heir," we have a TNG episode that almost 30 years ago predicted the Klingons/Russians would try to use cloning to bring back an ancient warrior.

To boldly go, indeed.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, May 12, 2021, 7:35pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S3: That Hope Is You, Part 2

@Dave in MN

"What's worse is using a cloak of utilitarianism to mask the true intentions to socially engineer a race-based utopia."

The "race-based" utopia thing is - in itself - another mask.

The actual intention here is to simply make the powerful more powerful. The tech and media giants couldn't care less about race. What they are aiming is to socially engineer a world in which they have absolute power.

To reach this goal, they need to build some kind of "us vs them" narrative. It's Propaganda 101. Dictators throughout history always used this trick, and for a good reason: It works. Indeed, it achieves many different goals at the same time:

(1) It provides an excuse for silencing and/or persecuting any individual or group.
(2) It creates an atmosphere where people are discouraged to think for themselves.
(3) By focusing on various "us vs them" issues (racism, religion vs science, left vs right) the masses are distracted from far greater dangers. Like the very fact that these megacorporations are in the process of taking over the world and creating an Orwellian nightmare for all of us.

So basically, the BLM/PC-culture thing is just a convenient excuse to further divide the population. And of-course, as Booming said, this specific agenda also has the added bonus of making these tyrants feel like heroes.

@Booming
"Religious institutions were fighting the worker movement and for the rich long before Marx wrote Das Kapital."

Classical religious institutions have far more in common with Soviet Russia or Communist China than either side would be willing to admit. The problem in both cases is not the core values, but the absolute power they have over their populations.

As the famous Trek maxim goes: "Absolute Power corrupts absolutely".

At any rate, this doesn't contradict Dave's point about why totalitarian regimes stamp out religions. Let me rephrase his statement in more general terms:

"I think you'd have to be nihilistic to decide that the best course of action is to consolidate and increase governmental power while eroding/ eliminating the rights of individuals.

If there's no reason behind anything, then any action is justified. That's why totalitarian regimes discourage individuals and groups from believing in an absolute source of morality (with the exception of the state)"

This is why communist regimes fear religion as well as any form of spirituality.

This is why theocracies fear competing religious view points.

And this is why the ability to think critically and independently is deemed as dangerous in both.
Set Bookmark
James G
Wed, May 12, 2021, 5:19pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Nemesis

Very stylish film. Superbly choreographed, dramatic action scenes. Very clever, very theatrical macabre touches. Powerful special effects. Genuinely superb acting, especially on Patrick Stewart's part. The Shinzon character is powerful and nicely sinister. There's some really clever dialogue, especially between Picard and Shinzon.

But this is a film that never amounts to the sum of its parts. I first watched it in the company of a bottle of Scotch about 17 years ago. I started to zone out, and I've always wondered if that was because of the alcohol or the film. I was entirely sober tonight, and it definitely the film. It really tested my attention span. The action scenes are over-long, over-indulgent and unnecessary and they robbed the film of some of its focus. i don't think the plot was that interesting or coherent.

I didn't like the scene with the buggy. Why everyone was so excited about it I have no idea, it looked much like a 20th century motor vehicle, which is of course exactly what it was. The dive off the cliff into the shuttlecraft really represents the whole film quite nicely - it's all spectacle and style and little substance.

I guess B4 was a nice idea. Great shame to kill off Data at the end, though. He made it through seven TV series and four films. Couldn't they have let him live another ten minutes?

Picard performs his own one man special forces mission again, he does this a few times in the TNG canon and it always comes across as dumb.

Well - finally that's the end of the TNG odyssey I started in 2018. Took me a long time to get round to the last film, but job done now. Bit of a shame that it bows out like that, really.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Wed, May 12, 2021, 3:04pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S3: That Hope Is You, Part 2

And what more is there to say about the third season of Discovery then that Redlettermedia rather made this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko0fKuy8z2U
Next ►Page 1 of 1,044
▲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.