Comment Stream
Search and bookmark options
Total Found: 191 (Showing 1-25)
Next ►Page 1 of 8
Re: ORV S2: Deflectors
I haven't been able to catch the last few episodes of the Orville but I did manage to watch tonight's episode. I really miss this show. After watching this episode, I kind of have to sit back and calm myself. I found the ending so profoundly emotional. All I can say is, wow. Star Trek was actually never this good.
I haven't been able to catch the last few episodes of the Orville but I did manage to watch tonight's episode. I really miss this show. After watching this episode, I kind of have to sit back and calm myself. I found the ending so profoundly emotional. All I can say is, wow. Star Trek was actually never this good.
Re: DSC S2: Point of Light
I am shocked at much I hated it, especially after last week.
Last week was, in my opinion, the best episode of the show thus far. It was tight, fun, funny, contemplative. It was everything I want the show to be.
This week was meandering, boring, inconsequential. No one learned anything. No one grew. Nothing happened.
It was also, hands down, one of the worst directed hours of television I've seen maybe ever. It was shockingly bad. Actors were stiff, delivered their lines in a rushed, awkward way, the action was clunky (especially that Klingon fight scene), and it was a guessing game for some characters motivations. When Amanda left Michael was she...mad at her? determined to find Spock? I had no idea how to read her.
And the script was horrendous. Just line after line of exposition. No depth. No nuance.
Did the Klingon Empire really change Chancellorships on account of a signed contract? Is this Ferenginar? Someone please, anyone who has been a Star Trek fan for more than...let's say, four years, defend that.
We've gone from Worf vs. Gowron in a duel to the death to decide who wins the throne to... "I'ma need your thumb print here...initial there...thanks."
I'm absolutely stunned at how much I hated it, because I LOVED last week's episode. I was lukewarm last season, unsatisfied after episode one, but all-in and on board last week. This week is in the bottom ten Star Trek episodes ever.
It wasn't insulting in its badness. That's a distinction reserved for episodes like Turnabout Intruder, Spock's Brain, Code of Honor, Sub Rosa, Move Along Home, Threshold. It was just bad for how poorly made it was, how weak the script was, how utterly inconsequential everything that happened was.
It's indefensible and no amount of fan service like Kor's daddy, or the D7, or Section 31 can change the fact that it's just a bad, bad hour of TV.
I am shocked at much I hated it, especially after last week.
Last week was, in my opinion, the best episode of the show thus far. It was tight, fun, funny, contemplative. It was everything I want the show to be.
This week was meandering, boring, inconsequential. No one learned anything. No one grew. Nothing happened.
It was also, hands down, one of the worst directed hours of television I've seen maybe ever. It was shockingly bad. Actors were stiff, delivered their lines in a rushed, awkward way, the action was clunky (especially that Klingon fight scene), and it was a guessing game for some characters motivations. When Amanda left Michael was she...mad at her? determined to find Spock? I had no idea how to read her.
And the script was horrendous. Just line after line of exposition. No depth. No nuance.
Did the Klingon Empire really change Chancellorships on account of a signed contract? Is this Ferenginar? Someone please, anyone who has been a Star Trek fan for more than...let's say, four years, defend that.
We've gone from Worf vs. Gowron in a duel to the death to decide who wins the throne to... "I'ma need your thumb print here...initial there...thanks."
I'm absolutely stunned at how much I hated it, because I LOVED last week's episode. I was lukewarm last season, unsatisfied after episode one, but all-in and on board last week. This week is in the bottom ten Star Trek episodes ever.
It wasn't insulting in its badness. That's a distinction reserved for episodes like Turnabout Intruder, Spock's Brain, Code of Honor, Sub Rosa, Move Along Home, Threshold. It was just bad for how poorly made it was, how weak the script was, how utterly inconsequential everything that happened was.
It's indefensible and no amount of fan service like Kor's daddy, or the D7, or Section 31 can change the fact that it's just a bad, bad hour of TV.
Re: DSC S2: New Eden
Does Jammer lack the enthusiasm to review this episode? "Ugh, I can't be bothered, it's just so meh." LOL. You never know!
Does Jammer lack the enthusiasm to review this episode? "Ugh, I can't be bothered, it's just so meh." LOL. You never know!
Re: ORV S2: All the World Is Birthday Cake
Some people seem to think that you can’t prove a specific sort of negative claim, namely that a thing does not exist. So it is impossible to prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq, and Bigfoot don’t exist. Of course, this rather depends on what one has in mind by ‘prove.’ Can you construct a valid deductive argument with all true premises that yields the conclusion that there are no unicorns? Sure. Here’s one, using the valid inference procedure of modus tollens:
1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.
Someone might object that that was a bit too fast - after all, I didn’t prove that the two premises were true. I just asserted that they were true. Well, that’s right. However, it would be a grievous mistake to insist that someone prove all the premises of any argument they might give. Here’s why. The only way to prove, say, that there is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record, is by giving an argument to that conclusion. Of course one would then have to prove the premises of that argument by giving further arguments, and then prove the premises of those further arguments, ad infinitum. Which premises we should take on credit and which need payment up front is a matter of long and involved debate among epistemologists. But one thing is certain: if proving things requires that an infinite number of premises get proved first, we’re not going to prove much of anything at all, positive or negative.
Maybe people mean that no inductive argument will conclusively, indubitably prove a negative proposition beyond all shadow of a doubt. For example, suppose someone argues that we’ve scoured the world for Bigfoot, found no credible evidence of Bigfoot’s existence, and therefore there is no Bigfoot. A classic inductive argument. A Sasquatch defender can always rejoin that Bigfoot is reclusive, and might just be hiding in that next stand of trees. You can’t prove he’s not! (until the search of that tree stand comes up empty too). The problem here isn’t that inductive arguments won’t give us certainty about negative claims (like the nonexistence of Bigfoot), but that inductive arguments won’t give us certainty about anything at all, positive or negative. All observed swans are white, therefore all swans are white looked like a pretty good inductive argument until black swans were discovered in Australia.
The very nature of an inductive argument is to make a conclusion probable, but not certain, given the truth of the premises. That just what an inductive argument is. We’d better not dismiss induction because we’re not getting certainty out of it, though. Why do you think that the sun will rise tomorrow? Not because of observation (you can’t observe the future!), but because that’s what it has always done in the past. Why do you think that if you turn on the kitchen tap that water will come out instead of chocolate? Why do you think you’ll find your house where you last left it? Why do you think lunch will be nourishing instead of deadly? Again, because that’s the way things have always been in the past. In other words, we use inferences — induction — from past experiences in every aspect of our lives. As Bertrand Russell pointed out, the chicken who expects to be fed when he sees the farmer approaching, since that is what had always happened in the past, is in for a big surprise when instead of receiving dinner, he becomes dinner. But if the chicken had rejected inductive reasoning altogether, then every appearance of the farmer would be a surprise.
So why is it that people insist that you can’t prove a negative? I think it is the result of two things. (1) an acknowledgement that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2) a desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes, even if all the evidence is against it. That’s why people keep believing in alien abductions, even when flying saucers always turn out to be weather balloons, stealth jets, comets, or too much alcohol. You can’t prove a negative! You can’t prove that there are no alien abductions! Meaning: your argument against aliens is inductive, therefore not incontrovertible, and since I want to believe in aliens, I’m going to dismiss the argument no matter how overwhelming the evidence against aliens, and no matter how vanishingly small the chance of extraterrestrial abduction.
If we’re going to dismiss inductive arguments because they produce conclusions that are probable but not definite, then we are in deep doo-doo. Despite its fallibility, induction is vital in every aspect of our lives, from the mundane to the most sophisticated science. Without induction we know basically nothing about the world apart from our own immediate perceptions. So we’d better keep induction, warts and all, and use it to form negative beliefs as well as positive ones. You can prove a negative — at least as much as you can prove anything at all.
Some people seem to think that you can’t prove a specific sort of negative claim, namely that a thing does not exist. So it is impossible to prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq, and Bigfoot don’t exist. Of course, this rather depends on what one has in mind by ‘prove.’ Can you construct a valid deductive argument with all true premises that yields the conclusion that there are no unicorns? Sure. Here’s one, using the valid inference procedure of modus tollens:
1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.
Someone might object that that was a bit too fast - after all, I didn’t prove that the two premises were true. I just asserted that they were true. Well, that’s right. However, it would be a grievous mistake to insist that someone prove all the premises of any argument they might give. Here’s why. The only way to prove, say, that there is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record, is by giving an argument to that conclusion. Of course one would then have to prove the premises of that argument by giving further arguments, and then prove the premises of those further arguments, ad infinitum. Which premises we should take on credit and which need payment up front is a matter of long and involved debate among epistemologists. But one thing is certain: if proving things requires that an infinite number of premises get proved first, we’re not going to prove much of anything at all, positive or negative.
Maybe people mean that no inductive argument will conclusively, indubitably prove a negative proposition beyond all shadow of a doubt. For example, suppose someone argues that we’ve scoured the world for Bigfoot, found no credible evidence of Bigfoot’s existence, and therefore there is no Bigfoot. A classic inductive argument. A Sasquatch defender can always rejoin that Bigfoot is reclusive, and might just be hiding in that next stand of trees. You can’t prove he’s not! (until the search of that tree stand comes up empty too). The problem here isn’t that inductive arguments won’t give us certainty about negative claims (like the nonexistence of Bigfoot), but that inductive arguments won’t give us certainty about anything at all, positive or negative. All observed swans are white, therefore all swans are white looked like a pretty good inductive argument until black swans were discovered in Australia.
The very nature of an inductive argument is to make a conclusion probable, but not certain, given the truth of the premises. That just what an inductive argument is. We’d better not dismiss induction because we’re not getting certainty out of it, though. Why do you think that the sun will rise tomorrow? Not because of observation (you can’t observe the future!), but because that’s what it has always done in the past. Why do you think that if you turn on the kitchen tap that water will come out instead of chocolate? Why do you think you’ll find your house where you last left it? Why do you think lunch will be nourishing instead of deadly? Again, because that’s the way things have always been in the past. In other words, we use inferences — induction — from past experiences in every aspect of our lives. As Bertrand Russell pointed out, the chicken who expects to be fed when he sees the farmer approaching, since that is what had always happened in the past, is in for a big surprise when instead of receiving dinner, he becomes dinner. But if the chicken had rejected inductive reasoning altogether, then every appearance of the farmer would be a surprise.
So why is it that people insist that you can’t prove a negative? I think it is the result of two things. (1) an acknowledgement that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2) a desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes, even if all the evidence is against it. That’s why people keep believing in alien abductions, even when flying saucers always turn out to be weather balloons, stealth jets, comets, or too much alcohol. You can’t prove a negative! You can’t prove that there are no alien abductions! Meaning: your argument against aliens is inductive, therefore not incontrovertible, and since I want to believe in aliens, I’m going to dismiss the argument no matter how overwhelming the evidence against aliens, and no matter how vanishingly small the chance of extraterrestrial abduction.
If we’re going to dismiss inductive arguments because they produce conclusions that are probable but not definite, then we are in deep doo-doo. Despite its fallibility, induction is vital in every aspect of our lives, from the mundane to the most sophisticated science. Without induction we know basically nothing about the world apart from our own immediate perceptions. So we’d better keep induction, warts and all, and use it to form negative beliefs as well as positive ones. You can prove a negative — at least as much as you can prove anything at all.
Re: DSC S2: New Eden
The episode was okay but I found it way too complicated for the story it was trying to tell. Too much techno babble throughout. 2.5/5. Pike remains the best thing about the show, he has a Picard type command.
The episode was okay but I found it way too complicated for the story it was trying to tell. Too much techno babble throughout. 2.5/5. Pike remains the best thing about the show, he has a Picard type command.
Re: ORV S2: All the World Is Birthday Cake
I think it speaks volumes that Jammer is finding time to review The Orville, but is putting off reviewing Discovery. Perhaps this is because Discovery is more difficult to review. Or maybe it's because despite how mediocre he thinks The Orville is, it's more lighthearted and fun.
I think it speaks volumes that Jammer is finding time to review The Orville, but is putting off reviewing Discovery. Perhaps this is because Discovery is more difficult to review. Or maybe it's because despite how mediocre he thinks The Orville is, it's more lighthearted and fun.
Re: DSC S2: Brother
It was okay, better than last series. Pike was perfectly cast. But it did seem much ado about nothing, very drawn out for what little plot there was.
It was okay, better than last series. Pike was perfectly cast. But it did seem much ado about nothing, very drawn out for what little plot there was.
Re: DSC S2: Brother
@NowThisIsMoreLikeIt Have to disagree. At least TNG season one had Picard. I struggle to care about any of the characters in Discovery.
@NowThisIsMoreLikeIt Have to disagree. At least TNG season one had Picard. I struggle to care about any of the characters in Discovery.
Re: ORV S2: Home
@Riker's Beard. I put Rumour but it was all but confirmed, through posts on their social media thingies. Which I never use but saw somewhere on the net. Age doesn't mean a great deal in Hollywood. It's all about power and money. Most of the men are dating women half their ages.
@Riker's Beard. I put Rumour but it was all but confirmed, through posts on their social media thingies. Which I never use but saw somewhere on the net. Age doesn't mean a great deal in Hollywood. It's all about power and money. Most of the men are dating women half their ages.
Re: ORV S2: Home
I'm in the UK and it won't air here for two weeks.
If Alara has left, that's sad, as she was one of the best characters. Rumour has it Halston was dating Seth and they broke up. I hope this wasn't the reason she left the show. I'm not sure it will be the same without her.
I'm in the UK and it won't air here for two weeks.
If Alara has left, that's sad, as she was one of the best characters. Rumour has it Halston was dating Seth and they broke up. I hope this wasn't the reason she left the show. I'm not sure it will be the same without her.
Re: ORV S2: Ja'loja
After a long hiatus, the return of the Orville was a welcome sight. I was not disappointed in any way. I genuinely enjoyed reconnecting with all of the characters in this way. This was much more of a day in the life episode aboard the ship. It was a fantastic way to reintroduce us to all of the characters and get us back on common footing for the show. I can appreciate that every episode doesn't need to be an adventure. In fact, spending time with this crew is entertainment enough on its own.
After a long hiatus, the return of the Orville was a welcome sight. I was not disappointed in any way. I genuinely enjoyed reconnecting with all of the characters in this way. This was much more of a day in the life episode aboard the ship. It was a fantastic way to reintroduce us to all of the characters and get us back on common footing for the show. I can appreciate that every episode doesn't need to be an adventure. In fact, spending time with this crew is entertainment enough on its own.
Re: ORV S2: Primal Urges
I am simply Blown Away by the visual effects of tonight's episode. Every single shot was simply beautiful. And I don't just mean the space shots. The sets this season, the production design, all of it is simply a Wonder to behold. As for the episode, I found it shockingly moving. Bortus really is the standout character of this show. At first, I thought this was a variation of the holodiction concept from TNG. I actually found it far more relevant than that, however. Internet porn obsession is far more prevalent in modern culture than simple escapism. I found their handling of the subject to be both tasteful and relevant. And, of course, the show's signature humor was still present. I genuinely consider this show to be must see TV. I can't wait until next week!
I am simply Blown Away by the visual effects of tonight's episode. Every single shot was simply beautiful. And I don't just mean the space shots. The sets this season, the production design, all of it is simply a Wonder to behold. As for the episode, I found it shockingly moving. Bortus really is the standout character of this show. At first, I thought this was a variation of the holodiction concept from TNG. I actually found it far more relevant than that, however. Internet porn obsession is far more prevalent in modern culture than simple escapism. I found their handling of the subject to be both tasteful and relevant. And, of course, the show's signature humor was still present. I genuinely consider this show to be must see TV. I can't wait until next week!
Re: DS9 S6: Statistical Probabilities
As a watcher this episode creates a series of grave contradictions in my mind.
First, the notion that transcending humanity and becoming superior is bad. From everything I’ve heard about these eugenics wars on Star Trek. It isn’t being led by superme that caused a war, it was undermen being unable to accept their inferiority and their place as ruled that caused a war.
Second, it is extremely obvious that being a shapeshifter makes one superior so by that logic the dominion should rule the federation (and I am not just saying that because I find the ideology of the federation repulsive) but surrendering would be bad for humanity because it would halt the survival of the fittest that war brings.
As a watcher this episode creates a series of grave contradictions in my mind.
First, the notion that transcending humanity and becoming superior is bad. From everything I’ve heard about these eugenics wars on Star Trek. It isn’t being led by superme that caused a war, it was undermen being unable to accept their inferiority and their place as ruled that caused a war.
Second, it is extremely obvious that being a shapeshifter makes one superior so by that logic the dominion should rule the federation (and I am not just saying that because I find the ideology of the federation repulsive) but surrendering would be bad for humanity because it would halt the survival of the fittest that war brings.
Re: TOS S3: And the Children Shall Lead
I don't seem to hate this episode as much as the general consensus here. True, it's certainly not my favorite. But, there are affecting moments in it for me. Especially when the children finally get their breakdown. Yes, I wish the story was better. I wish the alien was better. I wish the pacing was better. But, I can say that about a variety of episodes throughout the franchise. For me, the Alternative Factor will always be my least favorite original Trek. This one, for me, is a 2-star episode. Certainly nothing great, but nothing as atrocious as some others I can think of. I'm not arguing the point. I certainly can understand and see why people feel the way they do about this episode. I'm just saying that, for me, it's just one to get through. But not one to banish.
I don't seem to hate this episode as much as the general consensus here. True, it's certainly not my favorite. But, there are affecting moments in it for me. Especially when the children finally get their breakdown. Yes, I wish the story was better. I wish the alien was better. I wish the pacing was better. But, I can say that about a variety of episodes throughout the franchise. For me, the Alternative Factor will always be my least favorite original Trek. This one, for me, is a 2-star episode. Certainly nothing great, but nothing as atrocious as some others I can think of. I'm not arguing the point. I certainly can understand and see why people feel the way they do about this episode. I'm just saying that, for me, it's just one to get through. But not one to banish.
Re: TOS S2: Return to Tomorrow
This has always been one of my favorite episodes. And, for me, the ending never unraveled even a little bit. Thalassa explained to McCoy quite clearly that they had powers Sargon wished them to never use. That would include the powers of life and death. When their consciousness inhabited the Enterprise, that would have been no different than their android bodies. I never had any trouble with it at all. This was a wonderful morality tale steeped in genuine science fiction. And the "risk is our business" speech will forever be the most inspiring words Trek has ever produced for me.
This has always been one of my favorite episodes. And, for me, the ending never unraveled even a little bit. Thalassa explained to McCoy quite clearly that they had powers Sargon wished them to never use. That would include the powers of life and death. When their consciousness inhabited the Enterprise, that would have been no different than their android bodies. I never had any trouble with it at all. This was a wonderful morality tale steeped in genuine science fiction. And the "risk is our business" speech will forever be the most inspiring words Trek has ever produced for me.
Re: DS9 S7: The Siege of AR-558
Social evolution, as referenced in many comments above, MAY reduce underlying primal survival and aggressive traits. Primarily due to preferential breeding choices, but only to a very limited extent. The prevalance and intensity MAY be reduced. However to act as though those underlying traits wont exist in the future is ludicrous. Quarks speech though perhaps not fully realized, from the 20th/21st century perspective, is certainly realized within the 24th century federation ideal.
as to the "robot/drone army" arguments, such would violate the 24th century ideal far more than ground troops. Not to mention any such soldiers/weapons would almost certainly violate any number of internal/external federation treaties.
No SOCIALLY advanced civilization would use such weapons/soldiers. Because weaponry of such a type diminishes the cost of war. The less war costs the more viable a solution it is.
That likely seems insane to most readers, however consider this, the defiant is the FIRST federation WARSHIP. Though most federation starships are really just mobile military (civil defense if you prefer) research bases (they have less defenses and weapons, but are more powerful). This is in keeping with the defensive militarism of a socially evolved culture. The federation clearly has weapons of mass destruction or technologies easily adapted as such (genesis device) and STANDARD (okay relatively standard) torpedos that can be made into planet killers (Omega-VOY). Not to mention they can replicate bioweapons, if they choose, pretty much on demand. Notably, with the exception of the section 31 virus, those tactics are never used even when losing.
Federation questionable tactics/technologies are used by individuals and organizations as the war progresses, but not adopted to any further extent (shipyards and ketracel white facility come to mind). those actions should be judged keeping in mind that the founders/dominion attempted to supernova bajor's sun, using a federation proto matter technology before the war actually began.
Yes of course the technologically advanced federation COULD deploy a drone and robot army, much like the dominion deploys the biological equivalent Jem'Hadar. But they wouldnt. at least not until their bellies were empty ... really empty .. and a least a fortnight sans sonic showering.. minimum.
its intimated that the federation could (but never would) wipe out the klingons and romulans and definitely the cardassians, but as an enlightened civilization they prefer peace treaties allowing for the eventual and inevitable root beer infiltration. The federation is like the vulcans of ST: first contact, but with hugs though still kinda condescending.
Social evolution, as referenced in many comments above, MAY reduce underlying primal survival and aggressive traits. Primarily due to preferential breeding choices, but only to a very limited extent. The prevalance and intensity MAY be reduced. However to act as though those underlying traits wont exist in the future is ludicrous. Quarks speech though perhaps not fully realized, from the 20th/21st century perspective, is certainly realized within the 24th century federation ideal.
as to the "robot/drone army" arguments, such would violate the 24th century ideal far more than ground troops. Not to mention any such soldiers/weapons would almost certainly violate any number of internal/external federation treaties.
No SOCIALLY advanced civilization would use such weapons/soldiers. Because weaponry of such a type diminishes the cost of war. The less war costs the more viable a solution it is.
That likely seems insane to most readers, however consider this, the defiant is the FIRST federation WARSHIP. Though most federation starships are really just mobile military (civil defense if you prefer) research bases (they have less defenses and weapons, but are more powerful). This is in keeping with the defensive militarism of a socially evolved culture. The federation clearly has weapons of mass destruction or technologies easily adapted as such (genesis device) and STANDARD (okay relatively standard) torpedos that can be made into planet killers (Omega-VOY). Not to mention they can replicate bioweapons, if they choose, pretty much on demand. Notably, with the exception of the section 31 virus, those tactics are never used even when losing.
Federation questionable tactics/technologies are used by individuals and organizations as the war progresses, but not adopted to any further extent (shipyards and ketracel white facility come to mind). those actions should be judged keeping in mind that the founders/dominion attempted to supernova bajor's sun, using a federation proto matter technology before the war actually began.
Yes of course the technologically advanced federation COULD deploy a drone and robot army, much like the dominion deploys the biological equivalent Jem'Hadar. But they wouldnt. at least not until their bellies were empty ... really empty .. and a least a fortnight sans sonic showering.. minimum.
its intimated that the federation could (but never would) wipe out the klingons and romulans and definitely the cardassians, but as an enlightened civilization they prefer peace treaties allowing for the eventual and inevitable root beer infiltration. The federation is like the vulcans of ST: first contact, but with hugs though still kinda condescending.
Re: DS9 S7: Field of Fire
While the technology of the TR-116 rifle and targeting system may or may not be sound , the discontinuation and non use of such a weapon is sound. Its a weapon of assassination and murder, its only purpose is to kill, in complete violation of the tenets of the federation. One would also assume it violates one of the many treaties of the federation, both internal and external treaties.
Beaming and replicator technology could be used to decimate almost any enemy, since a biogenic weapon beamed onto ds9 could have wiped out everyone, as could beaming a bomb onboard. instead soldiers are beamed in. even klingons, cardacians and romulans (the less enlightened, so to speak, confederations never use such methods). notably this is overlooked when a bomb is beamed onto the ketracel white facility (as gamma quadrant invaders seem to be unprotected by Alpha quadrant treaties..)the destabilization of a suns core to destroy the jem h'dar ship yards. The same goes for the section 31 changeling virus, though predicated on threat of dominion and considerably further away from federation tenets.
Even starfleet controlled replicators seem to have extreme restrictions, and require clearance and command approval for even replicating substrates for biogenic weapons (bashir- bio mimetic gel). The TR 116 seemed to have similar but less stringent restrictions on replication.
of course, lesser civilizations seem to use such methods and weaponry with frequency against their enemies and their own people. (quark as arms dealer).
Clearly very effective and highly destructive weapons are available, "genesis device" but they are not used, partly because of enlightenment but also probably because of treaty bans. This applies more for the Federation, take for instance the Defiant (even sans cloak) which is viewed pretty unfavorably within starfleet as a "ship of war", created in response to the "borg threat". That even at the height of the war with the dominion its the only one of its kind, discounting the "valiant". War takes its toll on enlightenment though and perceptions of the defiant shift quite dramatically though not enough to commission more of them.
basically, its very reasonable that the TR 116 was not used, regardless of situation.
as far as the vulcan issue there is a strong argument to be made that this is realism, not revisionism. Vulcans are physically and mentally superior to humans. arrogance is not an emotion it is a conclusion of logic. Logic as stated frequently in the commentary can be used to justify almost anything, including superiority of logical beings. They use logic to restrain an underlying violent and highly emotional psyche , to deny who they are at the core. All of the series depict them as a superior race that has reached THEIR peak, in part because of this compromise. They are a stagnant civilization , they are not particularly adaptive. Reliance on logic alone has to some extent assured this. the flaws of the vulcans, like all god like figures, become more apparent as their "children" surpass or outgrow them. This is perhaps most strongly portrayed in ENT as the children seek to step out from the "benevolent" shadow of the "parents". While this is a simplification, it is also reasonable justification for a greater depiction of limitations and even flaws of the "highly evolved" vulcans. Tempering emotion with logic is a great concept, one that should be striven for in our own development, however logic not tempered by emotion is not an evolutionary path to aspire to. one of the themes that runs through ENT, DS9 and VOY is that moderation/acceptance of emotion rather than near complete suppression of emotions is path out of stagnation for vulcans.
of course thats just my meandering thoughts on the topic
While the technology of the TR-116 rifle and targeting system may or may not be sound , the discontinuation and non use of such a weapon is sound. Its a weapon of assassination and murder, its only purpose is to kill, in complete violation of the tenets of the federation. One would also assume it violates one of the many treaties of the federation, both internal and external treaties.
Beaming and replicator technology could be used to decimate almost any enemy, since a biogenic weapon beamed onto ds9 could have wiped out everyone, as could beaming a bomb onboard. instead soldiers are beamed in. even klingons, cardacians and romulans (the less enlightened, so to speak, confederations never use such methods). notably this is overlooked when a bomb is beamed onto the ketracel white facility (as gamma quadrant invaders seem to be unprotected by Alpha quadrant treaties..)the destabilization of a suns core to destroy the jem h'dar ship yards. The same goes for the section 31 changeling virus, though predicated on threat of dominion and considerably further away from federation tenets.
Even starfleet controlled replicators seem to have extreme restrictions, and require clearance and command approval for even replicating substrates for biogenic weapons (bashir- bio mimetic gel). The TR 116 seemed to have similar but less stringent restrictions on replication.
of course, lesser civilizations seem to use such methods and weaponry with frequency against their enemies and their own people. (quark as arms dealer).
Clearly very effective and highly destructive weapons are available, "genesis device" but they are not used, partly because of enlightenment but also probably because of treaty bans. This applies more for the Federation, take for instance the Defiant (even sans cloak) which is viewed pretty unfavorably within starfleet as a "ship of war", created in response to the "borg threat". That even at the height of the war with the dominion its the only one of its kind, discounting the "valiant". War takes its toll on enlightenment though and perceptions of the defiant shift quite dramatically though not enough to commission more of them.
basically, its very reasonable that the TR 116 was not used, regardless of situation.
as far as the vulcan issue there is a strong argument to be made that this is realism, not revisionism. Vulcans are physically and mentally superior to humans. arrogance is not an emotion it is a conclusion of logic. Logic as stated frequently in the commentary can be used to justify almost anything, including superiority of logical beings. They use logic to restrain an underlying violent and highly emotional psyche , to deny who they are at the core. All of the series depict them as a superior race that has reached THEIR peak, in part because of this compromise. They are a stagnant civilization , they are not particularly adaptive. Reliance on logic alone has to some extent assured this. the flaws of the vulcans, like all god like figures, become more apparent as their "children" surpass or outgrow them. This is perhaps most strongly portrayed in ENT as the children seek to step out from the "benevolent" shadow of the "parents". While this is a simplification, it is also reasonable justification for a greater depiction of limitations and even flaws of the "highly evolved" vulcans. Tempering emotion with logic is a great concept, one that should be striven for in our own development, however logic not tempered by emotion is not an evolutionary path to aspire to. one of the themes that runs through ENT, DS9 and VOY is that moderation/acceptance of emotion rather than near complete suppression of emotions is path out of stagnation for vulcans.
of course thats just my meandering thoughts on the topic
Re: TNG S4: Night Terrors
Anyone else though notice how similar this is to dead space the game? I mean the music and feel is perfectly matched to the game just before the dead became necromorphs.
Idk. My 2 cents.
Anyone else though notice how similar this is to dead space the game? I mean the music and feel is perfectly matched to the game just before the dead became necromorphs.
Idk. My 2 cents.
Re: ENT S3: The Council
'Dave johnson's point about languages and the 'Universal Translator' is well-made, and valid.
It would be nice, however, to understand *if* the U.T. was being used in the scenes with the Xindi. Seems unlikely, as we have seen numerous scene of the Xindi talking to one another without any humans present.
You could also wonder how the words of the Aquatics and Insectoids are being expressed to Archer when see them as written subtitles. Although I'm pretty sure I recall Hoshi actually translating on the spot in those instances.
All in all, I agree with the original point that was made, but there does need to be some understanding of the mechanics of the U.T. to help out the staple Trek fayre episodes of encounters with species where cooperation is required, and communication is impossible.....
My own snipe? Just what is the purpose of the weird copper piping that the Reptilians wear? It doesn't appear to serve any purpose. I'm all for cool costumes and the rest but it just looks.....daft (in my opinion).
3.5 stars for the episode, for me.
'Dave johnson's point about languages and the 'Universal Translator' is well-made, and valid.
It would be nice, however, to understand *if* the U.T. was being used in the scenes with the Xindi. Seems unlikely, as we have seen numerous scene of the Xindi talking to one another without any humans present.
You could also wonder how the words of the Aquatics and Insectoids are being expressed to Archer when see them as written subtitles. Although I'm pretty sure I recall Hoshi actually translating on the spot in those instances.
All in all, I agree with the original point that was made, but there does need to be some understanding of the mechanics of the U.T. to help out the staple Trek fayre episodes of encounters with species where cooperation is required, and communication is impossible.....
My own snipe? Just what is the purpose of the weird copper piping that the Reptilians wear? It doesn't appear to serve any purpose. I'm all for cool costumes and the rest but it just looks.....daft (in my opinion).
3.5 stars for the episode, for me.
Re: TNG S3: A Matter of Perspective
Re. The contradicting testimonies. No one has mentioned a verifiable claim made by Riker at 15:57: “...we’ve made arrangements for quarters on the planet”. Confirming this would be simple and would clearly support Riker’s version as true.
Re. The contradicting testimonies. No one has mentioned a verifiable claim made by Riker at 15:57: “...we’ve made arrangements for quarters on the planet”. Confirming this would be simple and would clearly support Riker’s version as true.
Re: DSC S1: Will You Take My Hand?
Reading all these very knowledgeable Star Trek fans comments,I think this series should be renewed now! No two year wait. I agree that this story is amazing. The federation are not acting like our federation we have known and loved for 40 years. The Klingons are not the Klingons we hate/love/respect. (no way would they have walked away from destroying the federation if they were that close to achieving that at time of war) The liberties these writers have made are a refreshing shakeup over star trek history. It's reminding me how I felt after the last episode of DS9....engaged. Time well invested. Don't keep us waiting any more. Go!
Reading all these very knowledgeable Star Trek fans comments,I think this series should be renewed now! No two year wait. I agree that this story is amazing. The federation are not acting like our federation we have known and loved for 40 years. The Klingons are not the Klingons we hate/love/respect. (no way would they have walked away from destroying the federation if they were that close to achieving that at time of war) The liberties these writers have made are a refreshing shakeup over star trek history. It's reminding me how I felt after the last episode of DS9....engaged. Time well invested. Don't keep us waiting any more. Go!
Re: DSC S1: Will You Take My Hand?
Reading all these very knowledgeable Star Trek fans comments,I think this series should be stopped now! No second series. I agree that this story is a mess. The federation are not acting like our federation we have known and loved for 40 years. The Klingons are not the Klingons we hate/love/respect. (no way would they have walked away from destroying the federation if they were that close to achieving that at time of war) The liberties these writers have made running rough shod over star trek history is un-forgivable. It's reminding me how I felt after the last episode of Lost....betrayed. Time wasted. Dont mess with the star trek universe any more. Stop!
Reading all these very knowledgeable Star Trek fans comments,I think this series should be stopped now! No second series. I agree that this story is a mess. The federation are not acting like our federation we have known and loved for 40 years. The Klingons are not the Klingons we hate/love/respect. (no way would they have walked away from destroying the federation if they were that close to achieving that at time of war) The liberties these writers have made running rough shod over star trek history is un-forgivable. It's reminding me how I felt after the last episode of Lost....betrayed. Time wasted. Dont mess with the star trek universe any more. Stop!
Re: DS9 S5: In the Cards
My Friends and me have been cursing the soulless minions of orthodoxy ever since we first saw this episode! - So awesome!
My Friends and me have been cursing the soulless minions of orthodoxy ever since we first saw this episode! - So awesome!
Next ►Page 1 of 8