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: 25,662 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 1,027
Set Bookmark
Jamie Mann
Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 2:41pm (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S1: Dramatis Personae

Not a bad episode in some ways, but inherently limited by the fact that it's a "reset" episode, where all the events and character interactions are wiped away at the end of the episode.

A throwaway episode that's not really worth rewatching.
Set Bookmark
Jamie Mann
Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 1:50pm (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S1: Progress

There's a few issues with this episode, not least that Star Trek had done this setup a few times before, not least when Data had to deal with recaltriant colonists in The Ensigns of Command.

Another issue is the fact that the premise doesn't make any sense. As other people have said, the idea of destroying a colonisable moon to generate a tiny amount of energy is ludicrous, especially when the Federation must have so many other ways of generating energy.

But perhaps the worst problem is that the colonists in this episode are cliched stereotypes. They're little more than retired American Gothic pioneers, telling tall tales and being entertaingly grumpy in a homespun and rustic way.

Cliche upon cliche piles on with Kira electing to perform a short-lived rebellion, and the episode doesn't spring any surprises or do anything interesting with the base premise, nor does it attempt to explore the ethics of balancing the needs of the many against the few.

Not one that's really worth watching more than once!
Set Bookmark
Ian
Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 1:36pm (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S5: Someone to Watch Over Me

Romantic comedy is so hard to do right, so everyone involved in this episode deserves extra plaudits for pulling it off so well. Most Trek stabs at romance fall flat, but DS9's "His Way" and this exploration of unrequited love by way of Pygmalion are quite special to this day.
Set Bookmark
Ian
Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 1:21pm (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S5: Bride of Chaotica!

Nah, the episode is fun. I do wish the crux of the story about Voyager being trapped and ultra-serious photonic aliens going to war wasn't so stilted and full of technobabble, but the rest of the proceedings are a blast. It's a joy to see the cast loosen up and get to play up the camp, and the love put into the production design is infectious. Give me Captain Proton cheese over season 3's Club Med or the offensive and cloying Fair Haven any day of the week.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 11:42am (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

"Care to explain that last remark, Jason?

Because I don't recall Booming ever telling us his/her gender."

Someone corrected me last time when I referred to her as a he.

"I'm also wondering what - exactly - you are so happy about here. First time for *what*, exactly?"

I am usually the one getting corrected for assuming things re pronouns. It was my first chance to correct someone else for a change :)

(I'm curious now, what did you think I meant??)
Set Bookmark
Yanks
Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 10:27am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S5: In the Cards

@Mark Bogn

""You wouldn't like her when she's angry." Kai Winn was played by Louise Fletcher, who won an Academy Award in 1975 for her role as the tyrannical Nurse Ratched in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."

Sadly, I don't think the writers had this in mind when they wrote this line.

They had a perfect opportunity to put her in the back of an ambulance without make-up in 'Far Beyond the Stars' and didn't.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 10:23am (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

Care to explain that last remark, Jason?

Because I don't recall Booming ever telling us his/her gender.

I'm also wondering what - exactly - you are so happy about here. First time for *what*, exactly?

(I have a pretty good guess regarding what this is about. I hope to God that I'm wrong).
Set Bookmark
Jamie Mann
Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 8:51am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S1: Q-Less

As much fun as it is to see Q chewing the scenery, this was a pretty disappointing episode.

Things don't get off to a good start when Vash mysteriously appears in the gamma quadrant to barely a blink from the DS9 crew. And somehow not only does O'Brien fail to mention the fact that she's linked to Q (something he later recalls) but there's nothing on record about this despite the fact that Cisco has even attended a symposium on Q's past appearances.

But the worst thing - apart from some stinging repartee from Q - is the fact that this doesn't feel like a Q episode. For all that Q plays his usual joker-God role, something which is conspicuous by its absence is the moral aspect which was usually present in the TNG episodes.

Instead, what we get is Q behaving as a malicious and actively abusive stalker. Pretty much every bad trick in the book is played - he reappears after abandoning her as if nothing had happened and insists she rejoin him. He then attacks people who are interested in her and even subjects her to physical attacks while smiling and promising that everything will be fine if she just gives up and goes back to him.

There's no attempt by any character to call Q out for this behaviour - instead it's all conveniently hand-waved away at the end of the episode with a nod and a wave.

This perhaps highlights the issue DS9 had - where Picard could act as a representative for the Federation's high moral ideals, the murkier backdrop for DS9 means that there are fewer opportunities to condemn behaviour or produce definitive moral judgments.

And it's perhaps telling that Q never reappeared on DS9...
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 7:55am (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

"But here, Booming hasn't done anything wrong.

So leave the guy alone, will ya?"

Booming's not a guy.

Booyah. First time for everything.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 4:46am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S4: Rejoined

Booming, please don't feed the trolls.

Thank you.
Set Bookmark
Sleeper Agent
Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 2:36am (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S6: Muse

This is the second time in a row now, that we get an episode with barely no Seven; but instead it's all about B'Ellana, and thank God for that!

A beautifully paced story with a wonderful theme and a flawless performance by Roxann Dawson. I really like B'Ellana and unfortunately I feel many of the episodes focusing on her lacks in story and execution. Therefore "Muse" is a real delight.

3-3,5 Stars.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 2:05am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S4: Rejoined

@dlpb
Phew, that is the Left's biggest problem?! Man, that's reassuring. I always thought it was internal dissension, inability to agree on anything, the constant desire to shot ourselves in the foot, indecisiveness, the willingness to see the humanity even in our enemies, self-destructive idealism. But a lack of self awareness. Thank you man that's great. Let me kiss you on your sweet troll forehead.
Set Bookmark
Springy
Sat, Nov 16, 2019, 9:32pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S4: Suddenly Human

Well, certainly continuing with our Family theme here, but - not great. Lots of silly, the most absurd thing being the way Jono's attempted murder of Captain Picard is just sorta brushed off. No biggie, kid's OK to return home!

Though it went in the opposite direction, Picard's quick decision about the boy's fate reminded me of Sisko sending the Cardassian boy, who had been raised by Bajorans, home to Cardassia. I realize now that I was wrong to ding Sisko for his hasty, unilateral decision-making - he was merely following established precedent.

Kinda dull. A few good moments.
Set Bookmark
Sleeper Agent
Sat, Nov 16, 2019, 7:46pm (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S6: Live Fast and Prosper

Really refreshing with an almost complete abscence of Seven.

Otherwise it was a funny plot with some really good scenes, I especially liked the one with Neelix, Paris and the Doc in the mess hall. Janeway meeting her imposter was also good as well as the cave monks scheme.

The overall execution could have been better, it feels a bit unpolished; but other than that there's not much to complain about. It had a classic Trek feel to it, something I always appreciate.

2,5 strong Stars.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, Nov 16, 2019, 6:52pm (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

@Peter

"Here's the bottom line: you're using the word 'scientific' in the way you always do, which is to make some kind of authoritative claim on a thing that puts you above all of us because you're a "scientist" and therefore what you say is beyond dispute."

Not true.

You've been here for quite a while now, so you probably know how I hate it when people try to pull that "I'm the big expert and you are all stupid" stunt. You also know that I've called several people on pulling this kind of sh*t.

But here, Booming hasn't done anything wrong.

So leave the guy alone, will ya?

Also, if you are so eager to discuss the original topic of objectification (with or without a direct relation to the TOS episode), why aren't you doing that? Nobody is stopping you.

@Trish
"I'm thinking there may be some folks in this discussion who are also on the spectrum. That's not an insult, or an accusation, or anything that has to be defended against. Just an observation."

Seriously?

You diagnose a bunch of strangers on the internet with a mental deficiency just because they have a different perspective on things than you? And then you say that it isn't something to be defended against?

I've known these people here for many months, and I assure you that none of them have any problem in understanding metaphors. Speaking of which: Why would a person who doesn't get metaphors, be interested in an allegorical sci fi show such as Star Trek?

I also think that your statement does a great disservice to any autistic people who might be writing on this site. There are probably quite a few of them here, given the high incidence of autism in geek culture. And they certainly don't need to hear the kind of gross generalizations you've made (while some autistics indeed have a problem with metaphors, there are plenty of others who get them just fine).
Set Bookmark
Bucktown
Sat, Nov 16, 2019, 3:43pm (UTC -6)
Re: ENT S2: Marauders

I wished when Archer confidently said, "We have a saying on Earth, Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day; teach him to fish, and he eats for a lifetime", the deuterium guy just looks at him and responds flatly, "What's a fish?"
Set Bookmark
Booming
Sat, Nov 16, 2019, 10:18am (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

I once promised Jammer to not react to certain behavior. In the spirit of this I will ignore Peter from now on until the end of time.
Set Bookmark
Tin-1
Sat, Nov 16, 2019, 9:46am (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S7: Drive

I thought it was humorous of Tuvok's line when he changed his priority direction amidst his security report efforts when Janeway finally asked about it and Tuvok said...later...if that's permissible....

Seven was not in this enough. Oh well....can't have everything....
Set Bookmark
Booming
Sat, Nov 16, 2019, 1:42am (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

@ Trish
I guess you are right. Maybe you would still provide a somewhat longer explanation of your view of the scene. Men tend to be more autistic and communication based on simple text can easily lead to misunderstandings. I really try to be less aggravating but obviously failed here.

I hope our little chest bumping doesn't discourage you from participating in this forum. Peter, Jason, William, Omicron, Chrome and maybe a few others we all somewhat know each other so old conflicts have a sadly a tendency to flare up in every new debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu1qa8N2ID0 ;)
Set Bookmark
Springy
Sat, Nov 16, 2019, 12:42am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S4: Brothers

This episode was good, a solid offering, but not a favorite. I think this is mostly because I find Soong unlikable and not very sympathy-evoking. He's manipulative, kinda nuts, and one dimensional.

Spiner is fantastic in it, and fun to watch.

There are really three sets of brothers in this - the little boys, Data and Lore, and Jean Luc and Robert. We just finished watching two brothers fighting in Family, now we're watching more adversarial-brother action.

I suspect it's really all about Jean Luc. The resentments between Jean Luc and Robert, and how they've impacted Picard. Jake is resentful and feels made fun of by his little brother Willie, and now a parasite is in Willie's belly. Lore takes what Dad has to give, leaving his younger brother to be different, more detached.

Onward.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 10:35am (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

@ Peter G
And what hard science might that be? Also why do you first say that you don't want the trollish back and forth to continue which you started by the way and then continue with it anyways?

I explained a scientific concept. You insulted and accused me and then without any backing said that it is not a scientific concept.

"Basically all this does is shut down conversation for no other reason than to assert authority. Granted, in this context you also shut yourself out of the conversation as well,"
I just said that after you insulted me and accused me of pushing an ideology and for whatever reason that Objectification isn't a scientific concept that I will not discuss it with you any longer. I never said that you are forbidden from discussing it which I couldn't enforce anyway.

I do have the right to not discuss something with you if it is my believe that it would not be a discussion that I would find interesting, don't I?

I will listen to this now for about 10 hours.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE1Zo5Ljws0
Set Bookmark
Booming
Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 8:23am (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

@ Jason R.
"Let me confess I just don't know what "scientific" means in this context. Science is a methodology whereby one studies the universe through hypothesis and experimentation."
Incomplete. You forgot theories which are essential. A theory consists of a core and a periphery. To build the theory core you need Axioms and basic definitions. The periphery consists of hypothesis and rules on how to measure parts of the theory.

What Nussbaum does with her definition of the term objectification is proposing a framework for the concept. Now it would be about finding methods how to test/operationalize and create hypothesis or to criticize/improve to concept.

I guess the concept of objectification as defined by Nussbaum could be used in Anthropology, Sociology, Political science, Law as you say yourself. But as I said I don't know much about the topic. Maybe Objectification is already part of a theory or used in some way. I don't know. I just know the sociological concept and knowing is half the battle. ;)
(I hope "barely knowing" is a quarter of the battle)

So that's why I'm so puzzled and that is mostly what I am when you or Peter say that Objectification is not a scientific term/concept. It's like if I said that Pacta sund servananda has nothing to do with legal principles. How would you react to that? I'm just confused. *confused smiley*

"If so would you mind providing a quote from her so we can understand what you are talking about?"
https://books.google.de/books?id=7zoaKIolT9oC&pg=PA218&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Here is the complete text. The concept itself is on page 257.
https://www.mit.edu/~shaslang/mprg/nussbaumO.pdf
If I apply this concept then yes. In that situation Spock objectifies women and as Omicron so eloquently explained shows an unfortunate bias on the side of the writers.

"Are you saying because some smart person at Harvard used the term that makes it "scientific"?"
Well it depends on how it is used but if it is conceptualized in a useful way then yes it may sound strange but this is how a term would start it's voyage to become an accepted scientific concept.

English often makes it difficult to express myself correctly. Especially when we are discussing complex topics. So please excuse any misunderstandings that arise from my imprecise phrasing.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 6:39am (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

Booming I have got to agree with Omicron that it doesn't much matter either way in this context. But maybe it's the lawyer in me but I just can't let it pass when people say things that make no sense to me.

Let me confess I just don't know what "scientific" means in this context. Science is a methodology whereby one studies the universe through hypothesis and experimentation.

I honestly don't see how that relates meaningfully to a term that is essentially metaphorical - nobody literally "objectifies" anybody so what we are talking about is how a person treats or relates to another person *like an object* rather than a person.

Again, how would that metaphorical description of some human behaviour relate to "science" in this context?

I mean I guess you could somehow say that it relates to the study of human societies through anthropology or something. You could design experiments I suppose to test some hypothesis about sonething called "objectification" in human societies. By that logic you could say "asshole" is a scientific term too :) Almost any metaphorical description of human behaviour would be.

Are you saying because some smart person at Harvard used the term that makes it "scientific"? Did she actually claim this was a science term? If so would you mind providing a quote from her so we can understand what you are talking about?

I mean as Omicron asks: why are we even arguing over this? You know I don't deny that men objectifying women is a real thing....
Set Bookmark
Yanks
Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 6:24am (UTC -6)
Re: ENT S2: Cogenitor

Top Hat,

I believe Trip snuck the cogenitor on Enterprise.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 2:41am (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

Can anybody please enlighten me as to the *point* of this entire debate on whether objectification is "a scientific term" or not?

Objectification is what it is. And it seems like both sides of this discussion have a pretty good idea what that word means:

Booming: "Objectification or dehumanization is about lessening the humanity of a group or person"
Peter: "It is *not* any old use of metaphor or simile"

Both 100% correct.

So why, again, are we debating the question of scientific definitions? Who the ****-ing cares, whether a word is a "scientific term" or not, when we all agree on its usage? The only thing that matters, is whether a given definition (academic or not) is USEFUL in helping us to understand the concept at hand.
Next ►Page 1 of 1,027
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2019 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.