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: 4 (Showing 1-4)

Page 1 of 1
Set Bookmark
Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 9:35pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Project Daedalus

Man, poor security chief Nhan in the last scenes here. She’s apparently suffocating on the floor and Burnham is calmly having an extended conversation with Airiam and the Discovery. Guess she’s OK though.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Feb 24, 2019, 3:33pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: The Sound of Thunder

@Leif -- I am definitely with you on the disappointment with the humanoid red angel. It was a real letdown. I was excited for something much more alien (like something like TAS's Kulkukan or Dramians. I never knew that the Iconians were shown in Star Trek Online but it looks like a great creative representation too.
Set Bookmark
Fri, Mar 7, 2014, 10:18pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S4: Broken Link

Jammer, I have to say, I have started watching DS9 after growing up with TNG and DS9. At first, the idea of a continuing show bugged me, but I am really enjoying it. I love that is it so easy to watch online now -- I first saw the show when I was 12 but only saw "The Emissary" and "Way of the Warrior" as they were on VHS!

But your reviews are always good to read after watching a new episode. Thanks for posting them all.
Set Bookmark
Sat, Jul 6, 2013, 8:45am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S7: Repentance

I know it may sound excessively harsh, but this gets a ratings from me of zero stars.
The first thirty minutes of this show for me were one of the best Voyager episodes I've ever seen – maybe the best. Why? Because it did a great job of true science fiction by taking a serious moral issue and then using the setting of a science fiction future to examine one of its important aspects. It “evil” as we understand it were simply a disease, a chemical imbalance, and could be corrected by something like a serum released into the water supply, then wouldn't a “psychopath” be basically a malnourished person? What would be the appropriate punishment for their crime? Killing them even though they're not really the same person and the person they are now wasn't in control at the time? Should you withold the “cure” as punishment? It illustrates the philosophical emptiness of retributive justice. Is a person more than their physiology and their circumstances? If you precisely copied, as if in a computer program, every detail of person's mind and physiology as well as their complete external circumstances, down to every molecule and every single attribute of every person they would encounter, and then 'ran the program again,' would there be a different result? If so, what is the third missing factor? The problem is that, to a significant degree, religious tradition has left us with this nebulous notion of a “soul” distinct from physiology and cirumstance that makes us feel justified in using retributive justice which, ultimately, is just an act of animalistic violence to sooth our emotions.
To all the people commenting things like, “the criminals should die for what they did, so what if it's revenge!” or complaining about humanizing criminals, I really have nothing to say. It's just emotional venting, it's immature, and it's not thoughtful. I realize that there is a practical issue when it comes to what to do with a truly dangerous and unrepentant murderer, but this episode is examing the real question. If you don't have an answer to the above question, you're a waste of time to talk to.
Here's where the episode crashes and burns for me – the subplot about the racial minority alien criminal. They just HAD to insert “balance,” even if it was totally perfunctory and forced and largely undermines the story they were trying to tell. They should have been much more careful about who they chose to be the good-guy-turned-bad-guy to counter the bad-guy-turned-good-guy because the stakes here are important. By reaffirming the idea that the apparently innocent guy from the group seen to have criminal tendencies is a bad guy, they're glibly undermining the point they're making with the other criminal guest star.
Even worse - they're forgetting the fact that the intention of the Benkaran criminal to kill the warden DOESN'T prove he's a bad guy in the way they portray it here, as he may have simply been reacting to a lifetime of oppression. Does that make killing him right? No, but equating that, a reaction to circumstances, with being a psychopathic killer, is thoughtless and utterly destroys any attempt to make the point they're making here.
I often rip on episodes that are excessively preachy with the social commentary, but I also can tolerate it a bit more if I agree with the message, as I do with the one presented in the main plot. The subplot's utter failure to reflect any sense of social responsibility TOTALLY ruins it.
Page 1 of 1
▲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.