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 (Showing 1-25)

Page 1 of 1
Set Bookmark
Stargazer
Mon, Feb 11, 2019, 6:38am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: An Obol for Charon

"The captain isn’t let in, there’s no extensive medical study done on him. It was cartoonish. "

Look at the crew standing up when he leaves the bridge. They know and the captain knows, because he was on sickbay with Saru. Just because they don't show the scene doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You also don't see Burnham getting from the lift to Saru's quarters. We assume she must have gotten there, because she arrives there in the end.


"no extensive medical study"

The ship's doctor clearly has no idea of his anatomy and how should she: Saru's the only Kelpian they have for study and he comes from a medieval society, so they probably have no idea about their own biology, etc. Unless they'd disected him and put him in a laboratory for ages, they can study him all they want, they wouldn't have medical data that would be helpful. They're lacking comparison and reference cases.

So, it's not cartoonish. It's just the only course of action available if you think through it.
Set Bookmark
Stargazer
Sun, Feb 10, 2019, 9:02am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: An Obol for Charon

"These inconsistencies have simply become the show-runners modus operandi. And this, I argue, is a problem."

Yes, but it is *your* problem. There are millions of viewers who were not even born the last time Star Trek was a big thing. A majority of the audience may never have watched TOS, they may only know the Abrams movies. And it's smart to treat this as a show that offers some connections for old coots such as us, but that mostly treats this as a fresh property that may be the first exposure to Trek that many people have. So, making it visually more modern, more interesting, more in tune with modern expectations of storytelling (cf. Star Wars/Marvel movies) is a very smart choice.

It's clinging to the 'but it was different in the past' attitude that makes people reject this show despite its multitude of strengths.


"Compare this to the gung-ho attitude of Discovery (at least in season 1)... Do you see the difference?"

Yes: Sisko committed a war crime, hid the evidence and decided that he'd do it again because the needs justify the means. In Discovery a small group of people was about to committ a war crime, but Burnham reminded them that there was a better way and that the Federation was better than this. So, the difference is that it's actually Discovery that offers the more optimistic version of the future and that has the more morally-aligned characters.


"But i *do* find it unlikely that Burnham will inspire these children to work for a better future, or to pursue an interest in science. "

Burnham is a strong, interesting, incredibly intelligent character with strong morals, honest emotions and an enduring love for science that might very well end up as an idol for a lot of young girls and boys. Like the Prince reference: We're in the moment, so we can't judge its downstream consequences. It might not happen, it might happen. You are guessing just as much as the rest of us is.
Set Bookmark
Stargazer
Sat, Feb 9, 2019, 5:40pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: An Obol for Charon

"but to bring her on just to out snark Stamets, as someone above pointed out, is retarded. One asshole character is enough."

You should think about the adjectives you use to describe things you dislike. There are thousands of words you can use that do not insult millions of people.

---

"so I'd say DSC is already ahead of TNG at this stage of its life, as hard to believe as that sounds. "

Look at the Rotten Tomatos score. Read the critics reviews. Look at the grades the AV Club, for example, gives. DSC at this point is the most critically succesful Star Trek show in history. More than TOS was. More than TNG was. And certainly far more than DS9 and VOY were.

No other Trek series has been welcomed this positively by people who review television for a living and certainly know their stuff. Which makes the violent dislike from so-called Trek fans even more unbelievable.

---

"the difference is that the term used in Star Trek is “transporter” not “teleporter”."

How do you know it's a mistake? It could be foreshadowing. It could be new terminology. It could be vernacular. Has there ever been an episode where they that "this is definitely not a teleporter"? Because unless there has, they can call it a Whiz-Bang-Machine and it would still not be a mistake, just a personal choice. They can call the Warp Drive a Hyper Drive and it would still not be a mistake, because it was never stated that it cannot be called thus.

The other "mistakes" (hologram technology, Lorca behaves strangely, Klingons look weird, Klingon ships look differently) have all turned out to be things that were planned and well explained later on.

So, I think it's unfair calling this a mistake when it might have been an active choice by the writer to signify the coming problems with communication.

---

"There’s nobody to help with the design that truly loves Star Trek and wants to keep things consistent like we had with the Okudas."

Look at the websites that every week show you just how well this actually incorporates or foreshadows ideas and technology from the other TV shows. Just look at the early-model VISOR, for example. The people who make this show clearly love Star Trek and know their Star Trek. They just cannot make it look like a 1960s show in 2019.

---

"glancing over the work of a mushroom loving wacko hawking his phony holistic wares"

In a show with FTL travel and instant communication across the universe, with nearly all aliens looking like humans and being able to procreate with each other, in a show with replicator technology and matter teleportation, in a show with telepathy... this is where you draw the line as it being 'unscientific'? Really?
Set Bookmark
Stargazer
Sat, Feb 9, 2019, 5:30am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: An Obol for Charon

"Please, do try to debate in good faith. Or, at least, with a basic grasp of the facts. "

I am. But, fine, let's switch to music: People remember music that is a 100 to 200 years old. There's Bach. There's Haydn. Haendl. There's Satie. There's Miles Davis. There are the operas of Gilbert & Sullivan (pop culture of their time). People still read Robinson Crusoe, The Man of La Mancha, Gulliver's Travels, Lovecraft, Poe. People still watch movies made by Fritz Lang. The ENT crew watched old movies all the time.

We don't see current musicians as "culturally relevant" because we are to close to them. The makers of Doctor Who did not think it would be remembered when they started the show.

Heck, Gene Roddenberry did not assume that Star Trek would still be a culturally iconic thing when he created the show in 1964 to 1969.

So, yeah: You may not think that a Prince reference is believable, but that's due to your cultural outlook, not due to the showrunners having no clue.
Set Bookmark
Stargazer
Sat, Feb 9, 2019, 2:34am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: An Obol for Charon

"People don't seem like they're from the future. Prince reference? Jeez."

Counterpoint: People a hundred years later constantly reference Shakespeare who is much older than Prince and to whose works far fewer people now living have been exposed.
Set Bookmark
Stargazer
Fri, Feb 8, 2019, 6:02pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: An Obol for Charon

Yeah, that's something that real scientists would never say or write.

Oh, wait: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/156/3775/645
Set Bookmark
Stargazer
Fri, Feb 8, 2019, 2:32pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: An Obol for Charon

"Snark is not characterization. Even putting the issues with Notaro's performance aside, her character doesn't come over as a person but a conceit."

It's her second showing on the show, so the 'snark' is what you notice most. This doesn't mean there's not more to her. Look at Picard, Kirk, Sisko, Janeway in Episode 2. Were they fully realized? So, why do you criticizise this show for it?


"Linus is a copy of Dann from The Orville."

And The Orville is an MRA copy of TNG. I very much doubt that the producers have to copy from a show that just crips everything from Trek and makes it more palatable for the knuckledraggers.


"And to think a gay guy co-wrote the story for this episode. Maybe they should have got him to do the teleplay too..."

Well done, because the defining thing about him is is sexuality that tells you exactly how he sees things and which beliefs he should have. Sure. Also: It *is* illogical for a virus to kill its host, at least until it had the chance to spread and propagate. But: Lots of viruses kill us because we aren't supposed to be their hosts. Because they have other hosts and they just accidentally adapted to us. But not well enough to reside in us without killing us. So, the statement is absolutely correct. (Apart from the fact that a virus does not think, so the 'logical' is misplaced here. But: She's an adopted Vulcan, of course she views thinks through this lens.)


""the transporter operator in the beginning said 'teleporter incoming'"

Maybe it's a personal habit. Maybe it's lingo that just disappears after this time (like the 'phase cannons' from ENT). Maybe it's vernacular that transporter chiefs use. Unless we live in that fictional universe, we've got no idea what language is normal and what isn't.
Set Bookmark
Stargazer
Sat, Feb 2, 2019, 3:50am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Point of Light

This used to be a pretty good community in the past. It's a shame that it's been hijacked by people pissing all over a great, modern show because it's not white enough, not male enough and not slow enough for them, as it was in 1986.

Trek had always lots of violence. Singling this show out, that is no more or less violent than pretty much any other show on TV right now, is hypocritical.

Attacking storylines that haven't been completed is hypocritical. Modern storytelling is serialized. Do you also critizise War & Peace because you dislike page 28?

It's also interesting how most of the complaints about actors or characters (Burnham is wooden, Tilly is annoying, Georgiou doesn't fit into Trek, Amanda seems too young) focusses on women and women of color. And spare me your explanations, because nobody believes in your lies.

This is the most succesful relaunch of Star Trek since TNG: Look at the Rotten Tomatos critics ratings. The overwhelming majority loves this show. It's a shame that we can't discuss it here because this website has been taken over by the 2 or 3 percent of haters who cannot get over the fact that Trek does not cater exclusively to them anymore. Them and their outdated beliefs in what TV should be like.

It's pathetic.
Set Bookmark
stargazer
Sun, Dec 3, 2017, 8:38am (UTC -6)
Re: ORV S1: Command Performance

Each new episode of Orville following the pilot has been better than the previous one. This show is great! I LOVE Orville. Thankfully, there are still producers and screenwriters out there who don't underestimate the intelligence of the viewers and still offer interesting, true science-fiction stories in the best tradition of Star Trek (mainly TOS, TNG). I strongly disagree with Jammer's view that Orville is a "clone" of Trek. The Orville isn't a clone, it's inspired by Trek, obviously, and pays great tribute and homage to one of the best Trek shows that existed; mainly TOS and TNG, although there are also elements of VOY, which is totally fine as well. This is not a rehash of the Berman era of Trek either. By the way, I love the Berman era, it was the golden age of Trek! The Orville finds inspiration in the optimistic, utopian future world, that was largely depicted by Star Trek (TNG), and which Berman's Trek era was so careful to preserve. We can be grateful for that. At least I am. You can imagine my disappointment after seeing all that being gradually destroyed now with the new 'Star Trek' series... but that's another matter. I think we're lucky and blessed that Orville exists now, at this moment, when Star Trek seems to be completely veering off course, offering a glimmer of hope to the audience who appreciate Roddenberry's optimistic view of the future as well as good, cerebral science-fiction stories and interesting characters. The cinematography and make up is also great on this show. My overall impression is very good. I'm very satisfied with the Orville, and, as I can see, many other people are, too. I wish the Orville a happy journey.
Set Bookmark
stargazer
Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 4:30am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

@Mitch

Yes, definitely.

@Joseph B

Yes, it looks really good! (and promising). I haven't watched the (two) episodes yet, but I'm about to.
Set Bookmark
stargazer
Mon, Feb 10, 2014, 12:42pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Here's one good review:

youtube.com/watch?v=9jAg6h1yzF8

It's a good, spontaneus analysis of what's wrong not just with the latest "Star Trek" movie, specifically Abrams' take on it, but also with today's Hollywood. Here's one small excerpt:

"If J.J. Abrams had a shred of self-respect, he'd pay back the 25 million he was paid to do this fu***** movie; and the writers would give their checks back. The agreement in society is that this is a meritocracy. You get paid to do things based on ability. If you can write something that the rest of us can't write, if you can direct something that the rest of us can't direct, you deserve your 25 million. Star Trek into Darkness was worse than the worst fan fiction you could find on the internet. Fan fiction was more in-depth, psychologically authentic and technologically accurate than the sh*t J.J. Abrams crapped out."
Set Bookmark
stargazer
Thu, Oct 24, 2013, 6:04am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

@Dom

Don't worry, that's just a rumor (which may or may not be true--allegedly Orci attempted to contact CBS about a potential series) which has been blown out of proportion. Fortunately, CBS is not interested now.

Wow. Over 500 comments. Has the record been broken?
Set Bookmark
stargazer
Sun, Jun 23, 2013, 2:48pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

@Digedad,

who said: "Two overpaid guys who never had a single original idea in their whole career, whose entire body of work is made up of other people's work arbitrarily slapped together and clumsily rearranged."

What a good and fitting description of Kurtzman and Orci.


Tim: "Star Trek fans want to see Star Trek - not fucking Star Wars."

True.
Set Bookmark
stargazer
Sun, Jun 23, 2013, 2:46pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

@Paul M.,

who said: "I root for Abrams and Co. to succeed,if only to pave the way for a new incarnation of Trek."

Yes, but what kind of Trek would that be? Would we really want those same people creating that same kind of derivative and uncreative stuff on the small screen as they did on the big screen? I know I wouldn't. The sooner they're gone from Trek, the better. I root for Trek, but I don't root for Abrams-Kurtzman-Orci. I think the best thing would be to replace the director, current writers, and 80% of the cast of this remake, as well as 90%, if not more, of the people working on production design. The new Trek sets, ships, etc. look inferior and everything is just too star warsy.
Set Bookmark
stargazer
Sun, Jun 23, 2013, 2:42pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

@david,

who said: "Star trek was in better hands with brannon braga than orci, kurtzman, lindelof and abrams."

Oh, I agree.

I'd welcome if some Trek veteran(s) in the future worked on ST, and it would be great if they could tutor those who'd some day take over the creative oversight of the franchise, like Gene did with Berman.
Set Bookmark
stargazer
Sun, Jun 23, 2013, 2:34pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Seeing the negative comments and reviews I wonder why people needed another Trek movie by JJ Abrams & Co. to realize what a fraud those people are - when only one (ST2009) was enough to see that. There was absoultely nothing original or praiseworthy in that 2009 abomination. It was highly overrated and unduly rewarded with box office success as is this latest installment by those hacks who turned Trek into what it is now. They say it's "alive" and "popular" again, but I find that hard to believe. It's alive alright, but its soul is dead. There's no true creative and visionary force behind it, it's merely a shameless milking of money out of an iconic 40+ year-old franchise. This remake is a rehash and almost a parody. It probably wouldn't worry me if that transformation/dumbification of Trek were only temporary and limited to the current remake (2009-?), but I'd be concerned if this dreadful remake would serve as a model for any future Trek, whether on big or small screen. That would indeed be worrisome.
Set Bookmark
stargazer
Wed, Mar 27, 2013, 8:01am (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S7: Drive

Well, at least Jammer is consistent. This review is full of cynicism. :)
Set Bookmark
stargazer
Sat, Mar 9, 2013, 8:56am (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S6: Muse

B'Elanna beaming (read: disappearing) in front of the audience is clearly a violation of the Prime Directive.
Set Bookmark
stargazer
Thu, Jan 31, 2013, 1:20pm (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S1: Q-Less

"that evil stuff known as Trekkian technobabble"

I reckon you probably regard any professional jargon, whether that of doctors or engineers, or of any other professional, as "evil stuff". I don't understand why people who watch science fiction consider technical and technology-related stuff a nuisance. It's science fiction! And, in addition to that, it's Star Trek (distant future, 24th century, advanced technology, etc.). Naturally, there has to be a certain amount of technicality. It would be strange indeed and out of place if such tech jargon occurred in a soap opera, but not in Star Trek.

Regarding the episode... Well, it's always nice to see Q. Although it seems a bit out of character for him to drool over a woman. But overall, a funny episode, and Q has one of the funniest lines in this one. :)
Set Bookmark
stargazer
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 1:22pm (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S6: The Voyager Conspiracy

I didn't find this episode particularly interesting. That space catapult was far more intriguing. It was kind of interesting to see another non-conventional method of space travel in Trek.

"The X-Files" was mentioned in the review. I liked that show very much. I guess this episode could be regarded as some sort of homage to X-Files as well as a subtle parody of conspiracy buffs. I personally don't subscribe to such theories nor am I a big fan of those, however I believe that conspiracies do happen. Kennedy's assassination, after all, was a a conspiracy, i.e. the result of a conspiracy. And there's also one major historical conspiracy known as a Wannsee conference, which as its goal had the extermination of the Jewish people. So, I'd say conspiracies are pretty real. Not all conspiracy theories may be true or accurate, but conspiracies do happen. Though we should be cautious when dealing with them.

Unfortunately, many conspiracy theories rely on conjectures, faulty reasoning, poor evidence, etc. Such is the case, I think, with Seven's conspiracy theories in this episode. Very little of what Seven presents could be qualified as solid evidence (besides, maybe, the mysterious tractor beam, which, as already pointed out, remained unexplained). She's basically making conjectures, without offering any real evidence for her claims. It's all just circumstantial evidence. It's amazing and surprising that the captain and the first officer fall for that. That's something which I didn't find convincing. Their naivety was intentional, obviously, to make the whole conspiracy plot a bit more interesting, but the reactions of Janeway and Chakotay don't appear to be consistent. Janeway would normally send Seven to sickbay or something, to let her be examined by the Doctor, and Chakotay would probably have a good laugh after listening to her lengthy exposition. But here they both begin to believe Seven after she masterfully "connects the dots" a la David Icke. I didn't find that very convincing.
Set Bookmark
stargazer
Wed, Nov 7, 2012, 11:13am (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S4: The Omega Directive

I find Seven's attitude towards the Omega a bit too individualistic. Of course, she is a former Borg drone and the Borg is obsessed with it, and, understandably, each drone was imbued with such obsession, but Seven's remark regarding her personal attitude towards the Omega is rather unusual. On one occasion, while speaking with Janeway, she says something like "I've been waiting for years for this opportunity...[namely, to find and harness the molecule]. The way she says that is awkward because it implies that she has been personally harboring the wish to attain this goal. But how could this be possible if she was only a drone in the collective? She had no individuality. There was no personality, no individuality, no "I", which could have been capable of having any individual aspirations. However, if, when saying "I", she means "we", the collective, then this would make sense. Maybe she still identifies herself with the collective when referring to the molecule, therefore using the personal pronouns "we" and "I" interchangeably, in the sense 'Borg's goals are my goals'. I guess that's one way to explain it.
Set Bookmark
stargazer
Wed, Oct 31, 2012, 5:08pm (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S4: Vis A Vis

Regarding Tom's function as Doctor's assistant... I never found it particularly convincing. Out of so many science personnel (blue uniforms), the ship's pilot has to be the Doctor's assistant? Hmm... Well, of course, Robert Duncan McNeill was among the main cast and that's certainly one of the reasons for this, but it wasn't quite convincing, especially considering the fact that there are other crew members aboard who are possibly more suited for the job.

If they had approached it more logically, and less practically, there would have been at least one or two assistants from the science division, i.e. those in blue uniforms, which we know there are plenty of on Voyager (among the initial 150 crew members), who would either permanently or temporarily provide assistance to the Doctor.

Nevertheless, it was sometimes quite entertaining to see Tom in a situation where he is forced to be Doc's nurse and be bossed around by him. :)
Set Bookmark
stargazer
Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 4:28pm (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S4: Retrospect

@Paul

Yes, Kovin is evidently sitting in what appears to be the 29th century time ship Aeon. LOL

Obviously not a big budget for this episode, so they had to resort to recycling.

Set Bookmark
stargazer
Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 1:55pm (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S4: Waking Moments

I think the episode is quite good. Quite interesting, actually. The possibility that someone, in this case an alien species, intrudes on other peoples' dreams is an interesting idea, and I'd say it's not so farfetched. I don't think it "borders on fantasy", as the the reviewer suggests. Dream telepathy is something that has been tried by people and examined in experiments. People often tend to dismiss something as impossible if it's not in accordance with what they know or are capable to imagine.

I agree, however, that the motivation of the aliens appears somewhat simplistic and not
very intriguing. But, hey, who knows, maybe they are just xenophobic. That would largely
explain their behavior and actions. We had something like this before in Star Trek.
Check out the TNG episode "Clues".

But what doesn't make any sense in this episode (Waking Moments) is that the Doctor - after he's been given a direct order by Chakotay to fire photon torpedoes from the bridge and *kill* him and other sleeping aliens on the planet - simply agrees to execute this order, without even a slight protest. This really makes no sense. Because the Doctor would definitely be prevented from doing that by the Hippocratic oath, which
namely says 'do no harm'. You simply can't kill. Period. This would be murder, and I'm sure his ethical subroutines wouldn't allow him to go along with this even if he wanted to. It would be illogical and unethical for Doc to do that, even if it meant saving the crew (by the way, we don't really know if this is the only way to save the crew... Doc's still there, after all). Chakotay, obviously, didn't alter the EMH in any way, so Doc agreeing wholeheartedly to obliterate him and the aliens (sentient lifeforms!) is very much out
of character, not to mention illogical. This, to me, is a major flaw in logic. But I guess there was no time in this episode to deal with Doc's ethical dilemmas. :)
Set Bookmark
stargazer
Wed, Oct 3, 2012, 5:44am (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S3: Displaced

@ Jay & Justin

You probably missed the part where Tuvok says to Janeway: "If the Nyrians downloaded Voyager's cultural database, you may be able to tap into the translation algorithm."

So, this explains the english language on the panels - they simply translated it by putting it through the translation matrix of their own database that had been previously downloaded into the Nyrian computer system.
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.