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: 23,212 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 929
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Wed, May 27, 2020, 1:56pm (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S2: A Private Little War

@ Chrome,

"The PD doesn't apply here because the Klingons already messed with the natural development of the people. Kirk's solution is supposed to correct that interference."

I'm citing the PD because I think the spirit of the PD is what's in play here - to give them a chance at a normal development, or as close to one as is possible at this point. TOS did more actually than the later series did to not only spell out the PD, but also to spell out that as a law it requires on-the-fly interpretation and that it's never black and white (which on TNG they often make it). A Captain is uniquely in the position to determine the best way to maintain its spirit when the letter of it is no longer possible (see A Piece of the Action for another example of a zany way to try to follow the spirit of the law). I brought it up because this is a viable alternative as a theory for why Kirk helps, as opposed to the more realpolitik interpretation that the Federation was being just like the U.S. in the Cold War.

"But as the episode discusses, it seems likely to lead to escalation and ramped up interference by Starfleet. Maybe in the Star Trek universe, escalation never happens and the Klingons back down, but in the parallel real world conflict *this episode mentions specifically* that wasn't the case."

I agree that the prognosis doesn't look good for paradise on this planet. The bottom line is that the Klingons ruined it, and the only thing left to do is salvage whatever scraps of it remain. The reason I keep mentioning the friendship is that I think it demonstrates that there can be reasons for arming a people other than to manipulate them into your own private conflicts. It might well be possible to do 'cold war type stuff' but in a spirit of friendship, depending on context. The best Kirk could do here to maintain balance was a least of evils choice, no question about that. My only contention is that I don't think it was necessarily an error, nor does it have to be seen as done for the purpose of having a proxy war against the Klingons.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Wed, May 27, 2020, 12:59pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Relics

@ Jason R.,

Hah! At least with that one I could believe it's a result of false boasting on their part.
Set Bookmark
Top Hat
Wed, May 27, 2020, 12:56pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S4: Little Green Men

And this is a small private craft rather than a heavily armed warship such as TNG initially feautred.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Wed, May 27, 2020, 12:34pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Relics

@ Jason R.,

The Doomsday device was also made of neutronium!
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Wed, May 27, 2020, 12:16pm (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S2: A Private Little War

@ Chrome,

I might have to re-watch for tone, but I don't recall ever getting the impression that we're meant to feel that Kirk made a mistake at the end. I don't think he was happy to have to intervene in this manner, but I don't recall anything indicating any awareness that he was making an error.

"It's not until Klingon interference is confirmed that Kirk is forced to get involved as a matter of duty. This makes it look like Kirk's interests are in line with Starfleet's and the burden he has to bear is for Starfleet's cause - i.e. winning or maintaining balance against the Klingons."

But I think this is a Prime Directive thing. He would have let them kill each other under normal circumstances due to the PD. What changes is that the Klingons interfere on one side. Technically that should not alter the Fed position that intervening is a breach of the PD; I don't think the PD has 'unless' clauses. So I suppose it's my interpretation that Kirk's personal friendship is what pushes him over the edge and makes him feel that it's just unacceptable to follow the letter of the law and let his friend's people die due to Klingon interference. Kirk's solution seems to me like the best he can do to re-establish non-interference. In effect, to try to match and therefore undo the Klingon interference in this culture. But I don't think it's to serve Starfleet's agenda in defeating Klingons; I think it's to fix a PD violation, even though technically it was the Klingons who violated it. I think the spirit of arming both sides is something like recognizing that what happened is not fair, and not representative of letting a culture evolve on its own. He needed to arm Tyree's side to give them a chance to settle their cultural dispute on their own terms. I see it as trying to re-establish normal cultural development there.
Set Bookmark
Wed, May 27, 2020, 11:17am (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

"(And less of the comments on others comments about comments on comments ;-P)"

I just have to comment on this.

Does this make my comment "a comment about a comment on comments on other comments about comments on comments"? ;-P

"Is a media franchise capable of having a culture? A pop culture sub-culture, if you will? Is adherance to that established culture important? Or does distancing from it allow "This isn't X" to be a valid argument? Or is that merely a fandom practice that has no bearing on a final produce, its success or failure, and something creators should ignore?"

These are indeed interesting questions, and I don't pretend to know the answers.

But I think you're ignoring a very important consideration here: What did the original creator of the franchise want? Should that have relevance as well?

Star Trek was created with a very specific vision in mind: To show us a better humanity and give us hope for the future. This fact isn't the invention of some geek culture. It was mentioned countless of times in Roddenberry's own words.

Leaving everything else aside, doesn't this vision deserve to be protected? At least to some extent?

We should also remember that we aren't just talking about some crazy caprice here. It's not like Roddenberry had an obsession to broccoli and the color purple. We are talking about a genuinely important, hopeful, positive vision for the future.

Is it okay for the current IP owners to just throw all this away as they please? I don't think so. Nor do I think that the fans who feel betrayed and/or angry are "overreacting". This *is* a big deal and it should be treated as such.

"DS9 was vastly different to them both, but again, the changes to the universe and show culture happened because of good storytelling. I mostly blame Ron Moore for this, but hey, he had a vision for a slightly less perfect Federation."

DS9 is really a borderline case.

On the one hand, they made a very real effort to respect everything that came before.

On the other hand, it *did* become increasingly dark and warlike, to the point where the question "is DS9 still Trek?" was a valid one.

I know of some Trekkies who can't accept DS9 as Star Trek because of this. I get where they are coming from, even though I do not share their opinion. This is a grey area where a variety of individual opinions can make sense.

With the new shows, however, the situation is quite clear cut. If you removed the words "Star Trek" from the title and changed a few iconic names, the result would be simply UNRECOGNIZABLE as Star Trek.

Some people don't mind this. Others are positively excited by these changes. Both reactions are perfectly fine. To each his own.

The problem begins when people are denying that these massive changes are even taking place. No, there is no precedent for this kind of complete overhaul in the history of Star Trek. Anybody who says otherwise is either lying or delusional.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Tue, May 26, 2020, 9:59pm (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S2: A Private Little War

@ Chrome,

I hear you on some of these objections. For my part Nona annoyed me as a kid, since she comes off as so antagonistic and manipulative. However looking back I wonder whether there isn't something deeper to be found there. Basically she wants a strong leader, yes, a 'real man', and also one she can manipulate. A man of peace wouldn't have much room for her type of thinking, whereas an emotionally agitated and movable man would. To me this says something about how men of peace might come off to others who are expecting the "strong man". For instance, could a moderate and peaceful person have taken over Saddam's Iraq back in the 90's? Or would that have been rejected by all involved as weak and that person been deposed? It begs the question of not just which approach is enlightened, but which will actually work. No point putting a 'man of the future' in power if in the present they cannot possibly rule successfully. I think Hamlet is all about that. In an less developed society you can't have a peaceful person at the helm. And maybe Nona is our vehicle to that realization, especially as she's the female presence which, reputedly, is more attracted to the alpha type than the 'decent person.' Or at least that is an impression we may get observing the success powerful men and celebrities get in the romance department. My point is that maybe all signs point towards "nice guy can't lead us" in a more primitive society.

Regarding the proxy war aspect, I'm not sure about your conclusion that it should be seen as a failure of a policy. The cold war setting is established by the Organian Treaty, and so Kirk has to choose between letting Tyree's people be run over, or to arm them and give them a chance. Now in the actual Cold War the situation was IMO more like both sides were pillaging the Third World and using the 'war' as a cover. But in our Trek context we know Kirk wouldn't do that, and that he legitimately just wants them to be able to defend themselves. The proxy war in this case isn't necessarily about containment of the Klingons from expanding as an empire, but could be seen as just trying to help these people. Part of our backstory is Kirk's personal friendship with Tyree. Given a choice between watching them die or helping by arming them, I'm not so sure that arming them is illogical. I think maybe the motive matters a lot. Protecting a vulnerable people is really a different objective than using some other people to fight a war for you that you don't want to fight directly, using them as canon fodder.

Don't you think?
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Tue, May 26, 2020, 9:45pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Relics

@ Jeffrey Jakucyk,

I think you raise some good points about the tech side of the episode. My main gripe is that the tech side wasn't interesting, more so than the fact of certain illogical omissions. I guess I do have a few possible explanations I could suggest:

"Second, how does the sphere create such a huge gravity well when it's mostly hollow? Yes if it takes up all the matter present in a solar system to build (and then some), that's a lot of mass, but they go into systems with stars big enough to go supernova, quasars, etc., and they don't seem to have any problem with the gravity."

If you took all matter in our solar system there is NO WAY you'd have enough to encircle a star like they did here. So I guess we need to conclude that they used matter from many star systems, shuttling it in to complete the job like a giant Death Star. I guess if it was the combined matter of like 100 systems maybe that could explain it? But even then that shouldn't compare with the mass of a large star, so yeah...

"Third, how does anything cling to the inner surface of the sphere? Its center of mass is still at the star. I suppose they can use some tech to explain this, since they do get all of the star's energy to harness."

This one actually seems sensible to me. The issue isn't the center of gravity of the star system, it's the force of gravity at any given point. If the sphere is very far from the star then its gravity would be minor compared to the gravity of the immediate matter. That is why we don't fly off of the Earth into the sun every day. It ends up being a math question about how much matter is how close to you, to determine the net force applied to you when you're on the surface. I can't do that calculation, but it would have to do with how dense the matter is near you and just how big that sphere is. The mass of the rest of the sphere ends up mattering less the further it is from you, but still the parts of the sphere closer to you would all impact you a lot, just as the matter 'beneath' your feet would. Unlike Earth, where the majority of the Earth's mass is 'beneath' you, in the sphere it would largely be to the sides of you (the furthest points being 'above' you, but also too far away to matter much compared to the nearer parts). So it is possible that the net gravity acting on you would, let's say, make you hover 100 feet off the ground! Or it could be anything like that, it depends on what numbers (radius and density) are plugged into the equations.

"Fourth, it should've taken years for the Enterprise to get from the portal to anywhere near the sun at those speeds. Even if you assume those tractor beams accelerated the ship at impulse speed (let's say 1/8 impulse, which would be 1/32 light speed), it would still take nearly three hours to travel the 100m radius of the sphere."

Let's say for argument's sake that the sphere's radius is equal to the distance of the Earth to the sun (151 million km), and that the Enterprise as you say was going 1/32 C. C = 1 billion kph, so 1/32 C = 31 million kph. So at 1/8 impulse (if your figure for it is correct) the Enterprise would move from the portal to the star in around 15 hours, assuming no acceleration as it got closer. That does roughly seem to match what the show portrays.

"Fifth, what idiot designed the portal to fling ships directly towards the sun anyway? Of course, since it would really take so long as to be irrelevant..."

I, uh, assume the system was malfunctioning by this point. Like, presumably air traffic control or whatever would shut off the beam once the ship was inside.

"Seventh, Geordi could've opened the portal, hailed the Enterprise, and conversed with them as many times as needed to figure out a solution. Jamming the Jenolen into the hatch was just a contrivance."

I guess what they were trying to suggest was that they could only successfully keep it open for seconds, so they needed to buy a little time?
Set Bookmark
Tue, May 26, 2020, 8:37pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

How about forgetting about new shows? Most people here, from what I gather, haven't even watched fucking Babylon 5. Jammer hasn't. As a sci-fi fan, that's a crime.

Also, the same people decrying the "dark and depressing" stuff of today still praise nuBSG.
Set Bookmark
Tommy D.
Tue, May 26, 2020, 6:27pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

Personally loved Mr. Robot. Thought the acting and direction were awesome. Only missteps in my mind were a dragging of the 2nd season and the ending, which while still good wasn't quite the payoff I had hoped for.
Set Bookmark
Tue, May 26, 2020, 5:47pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S1: Jetrel

Great post above from Skeptical (years ago now). I could easily come up with better arguments from Jetrel than the scriptwriters - the analogy with Hiroshima is interesting but fails because anyone actually involved in Hiroshima would have pointed out that nuking it saved millions of lives (compared to a land invasion of Japan). Instead from Jetrel we get absurd straw men arguments about how you should always pursue scientific progress even if it means mass destruction.

I think Star Trek's ability to consider complex moral arguments is probably overrated, honestly. With the exception of Deep Space Nine, these kind of straw men on one side of the argument were the norm for the show. Similarly you sometimes get liberals not understanding why conservatives like Star Trek. Can't conservatives see themselves in the straw man villains who keep losing the argument? Um, no, that's not what we believe so it's really not very troubling to see those points defeated.
Set Bookmark
Tue, May 26, 2020, 3:58pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

If it were just a matter of Stewart participating in ST:P, I doubt it would have had the same effect. It's the fact that the actor actively campaigned for this change, combined with the knowledge that this was always how he felt about the character.

"As for Stewart himself, he's an actor. They're usually not nearly as clever as the characters they play. What do you do..."

LOL. Well, that certainly made me feel better ;-)

(doesn't really solve my problem. But at least I can now laugh about it instead of feeling miserable, so thanks)
Set Bookmark
James White
Tue, May 26, 2020, 3:42pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

Omicron - I can't disagree there. If Patrick Stewart would not play Picard as he was on TNG, they really should have said no. It's funny, because in the first episode of the PIC show, you see a glimpse of the old Picard in the interview. Then it's gone for most of the season. THAT MAN needed to come out. He can be older, wiser, even more taciturn. But he cannot be someone unrecognizable to the man that just dominated TNG for all those years.

As for Stewart himself, he's an actor. They're usually not nearly as clever as the characters they play. What do you do...

Take solace in the fact that you know better than the actor himself when it comes to Picard. And look for a brighter future for ST. Who knows, maybe Kurtzman will suffer an embolism when attempting to edit one of his meth-infused, shit scenes.
Set Bookmark
Tue, May 26, 2020, 3:32pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

@James White

I personally recommend both Black Mirror and the Expanse, and I'm known for being *very* picky in the stuff I watch.

Doesn't change the fact that having more variety would be better. Why does EVERY sci fi show be dystopic and grim these days? Heck, Black Mirror isn't even American...

"Just declare Picard 'over' with All Good Things. Or maybe even Nemesis if you can stomach it. Kurtzman sucks so bad that honestly I don't consider his shows ST."

Sure. That's not the problem.

The "only" thing that's ruined for me is the enjoyment of watching one specific actor when he plays one specific role: Patrick Stewart portraying Picard.

I know it sounds petty, but I'm not doing this on purpose! I'm not stupid. I know the difference between the fictional character of Jean Luc Picard (who is still a role model for me) and the person who plays him.

I just can't help but feel the actor's own contempt to the role that he is playing, every time I see him onscreen. It takes me straight out of the story. It's silly, I know, but you can't control these things.
Set Bookmark
James White
Tue, May 26, 2020, 3:17pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

Omicron - I agree as well. When Ridley Scott started fiddling with his Alien prequel films, that really bugged me. Lucas as well in the SW universe.

Don't sweat it. I thought the Halloween series was irredeemable. Then Carpenter told every director since the original to fuck off. And the result was fantastic. You never know what the future holds, especially for something as timeless as ST. In the meantime, things like Inner Light, Chain of Command, Darmok, BOBW, and so forth will always exist. Just declare Picard "over" with All Good Things. Or maybe even Nemesis if you can stomach it. Kurtzman sucks so bad that honestly I don't consider his shows ST.
Set Bookmark
James White
Tue, May 26, 2020, 3:07pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

Booming - as they say in this country, "not so fast, Jack" :)

As you said, let's get through the list. I'll list your comments and my "response" to each.


-Black Mirror (apart from San junipero - which I love) it is a very dark show. I liked it more when nobody knew it.

Response: You forgot USS Callister (tough middle part but very uplifting ending); Striking Vipers (fun and engaging); Nosedive (light-hearted fare); Hang the DJ (romantic); and several others. It's not just SJ my friend. Also, a number of the other shows I would not consider "very dark." Yes, White Bear is brutal. But only a few get to that level.

-The Expanse: As I said, right now I have a problem with dark and depressing.

Response: Yes, you indicated this. But you also said there is very little "good sci fi shows" on today. Those are two different things. But I'll take you to mean that "good" = "optimistic." I don't think a majority of people would agree with you. Also, there is a quite a bit of humor in The Expanse. It's really not as bleak as you make it out to be. In fact, the realism adds to my optimism that in the future, at least there will be forces on both sides fighting it out. ST is a utopian drama. Good luck with that future.

-Dark: Not sci fi. And being German I must admit that I'm highly critical of everything German. I think we should stick with strange arthouse movies that nobody watches :) I saw the first season and thought eh...

Response: I disagree. It's a time-traveling mystery/drama that spans multiple timeframes. At best, you could argue it has other elements as well so it's a hybrid.

-Stranger Things: Also not a sci fi show and certainly not optimistic. I really liked the first season but now with the rest I can never watch it again. The later copy and paste seasons destroyed it for me.

Response: That's subjective. The show continues to garner a positive reception and critically favorable reviews. Also, if Stranger Things isn't sci fi, then neither is the X Files or Fringe. Telekinesis, inter-dimensional travel, alien creatures. Yes, this is hardly "hard sci fi." However, ST has warp drive and transporters, neither of which is grounded in anything close to legitimate science.

-The OA: Never seen it. Did not tickle my fancy. Doesn't look very optimistic, though.

Response: It's not overly optimistic. I liked parts of it. It has a very loyal fanbase which was very upset over its cancellation.

-Westworld. MOST PRETENTIOUS SHOW EVER. I liked the first season but after that it becomes pretty thoughtless torture porn. It's like they have to fill a murder quota every episode. Also this show is so much in love with itself.

Response: Actually, it doesn't. Season 2 is held in high regard and some prefer it over season 1. Season 3 is a bit more of a mixed bag. However, it's an attempt to "reboot" the show beyond the theme park motif. The primary criticism is that it is too unwieldy and complex. Hardly the "thoughtless torture porn" you are describing.

-Dr. Who. Yeah ok but for the time being I have no way of getting that even though I'm on three streaming services. It is also pretty redundant but silly enough to be enjoyable.

Response: Well, TNG was pretty redundant when you consider its connection to TOS. VOY is TNG redux. Enterprise is proto-TOS and far less enjoyable. Only DS9 deserves a truly innovative label. Dr. Who isn't for everyone. But it's fun and generally uplifting. A

-Devs: I don't have Hulu. While I really liked both Garland features (I actually like the less beloved Annihilation more) this also looks preeeety depressing.

Response: It's an existential tale with a sci fi premise. If you like Annihilation, you'll probably like this. Because Annihilation is all kinds of depressing and fucked up my friend.

-Handmaid's Tale: Here I jumped ship when I realized that Peggy from Madmen would never get out of it. Also torture porn. Maybe even worse than Westworld. Also very depressing.

Response: Or, incredibly well acted, tight script, compelling plot turns, and extremely believable drama. Torture porn takes up a very small part of it. That's a lazy critique.

-The Man in the High Castle: I liked it a bit but the leads are just too terrible and the plot is all over the place. Also dark and depressing.

Response: Leads are decent but I'll agree they could be better. Also, you've used you allotment of 5 "dark and depressing" criticisms. You're no longer allowed to use this.

-Lost in Space:

Response: That was pretty funny. You rick-rolled me, YouTube style. Seriously, Lost in Space is so much better than it has any right to be. The sci fi and overall concepts may not be top tier, but the episodes are entertaining and the characters are well developed. Mediocre? No, Will Robinson!!

-The Orville: Yeah... eh it's ok. The only relatively positive show on your list. If you can ignore some troubling aspects like Stalky McrapeBlob.

Response: This show is worse than probably every other listing. It's at least uplifting so it gets an auto bump of 50% on your scale. Otherwise, it's pretty stupid.

-The Rain: Pass. That show came out when I started to tire of all this dark and depressing stuff that is 95% of "good" shows. People really have to pop a Xanax or get out more.

Response: Yeah, that's probably true of this show.

- Altered Carbon: I watched the first episode, I think, and found it pretty stupid and simplistic.

Response: One episode viewing. Congrats. It's not 2001. But it has it's moments.

- Humans: Never heard of it. Looks like Westworld but less gory but still depressing and dark.

Response: Maybe you don't like depressing and dark because you're prone to constantly saying "depressing and dark"

-Mr. Robot: Evil corporations control us all. I already live that, I don't need to see a show about it. :) I liked the first season, though, then it went off the rails. Consumed by it's own success, I assume.

Response: Partly true. It's a sold show across its seasons. Very few would say it "went off the rails." Also, if you live this, and you're depressed to the point that you cannot watch 75% of the sci fi out there, I suggest a change of scenery for you.

As I said before. Either the US has lost the ability to create positive outlooks or the audience is so depressed that they want nothing else. I do want positive.
The good place was nice, ok they dropped the ball in season three but still. I cried and laughed and at the end I didn't think that everything will get worse and life is a nightmare where we helplessly tumble towards our doom.

Response: We haven't lost the ability. We're in a holding pattern while we "clean house." The U.S. rarely does anything in an efficient or simple fashion. We move in cycles, and the change is often messy. I'm the eternal optimist. Things will get better. The U.S. would do well to embrace some of the features of your country, particularly when it comes to NOT SAYING FUCK YOU to every scientist on television.

Villeneuve is doing Dune... hmm that gives me some hope. I'm somewhat interested in the second age Tolkien thing Amazon spent a whooping billion on. I fear that it will be another tank driving through my early teenage memories. We shall see.

Response: Yep. I'm just having some fun with this. I very much want a return to form for ST. But, to play devil's advocate, you may have dismissed some of the shows above too quickly. Give a few another shot.
Set Bookmark
Tue, May 26, 2020, 3:04pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

"As I said before. Either the US has lost the ability to create positive outlooks or the audience is so depressed that they want nothing else."


It's just that the entertainment industry is ruled by mega-corporations who got used to certain formula and they are too afraid to change it.

There are plenty of creative types that can (and want to) make more positive things. It is just highly unlikely that you'll see their creation on TV.

And of-course there's an audience for such things. The Orville is proof of that. Despite all the weaknesses of that show, it still managed to get millions of loyal fans.

Now imagine if we got rid of the flaws. Imagine the premise being done correctly. It is very easy to see that positive sci fi can be a gold mine.

Also, why are you singling out the USA? If you know of any non-US positive shows out there, please do tell.
Set Bookmark
Tue, May 26, 2020, 2:33pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

@James White

"I do agree that Trek is unique. But maybe let it 'die' for awhile."

I'm all for that. With 700+ episodes, many of them true classics, I don't really understand this mad rush to create tons of new sh*tty content.

The problem is that CBS is not willing to leave the old material alone. As Mal half-jokedly said, Star Trek has turned into some kind of grotesque zombie. If it had simply died in peace, it would have been far better.

You know what I've discovered recently? That I can't enjoy TNG anymore. To be more precise: I can enjoy thinking about it, but I can no longer enjoy *watching* it.

Because every time I see Picard in TNG, I automatically think about what his actor is doing to Star Trek right now. I also think about *why* he is doing this. I listen to Picard's speeches and they ring phony in my ears, because I know the actor (even back then) felt nothing but contempt to the message he was hired to convey.

You have no idea how awful this is.

But no biggie, right? We are just a bunch of silly haterz who are afraid of change.

(Being a Trekkie in this day and age is beginning to look like way too much trouble for my taste...)

"Maybe what we need is a new visionary - one that creates a very positive, rich and mentally engaging future. Doesn't need to be ST. With all the talent out there, I say just give it time."

Yes. That's exactly what we need. Something fresh and focused to enjoy. I wait with baited breath for this to happen.

Meanwhile we have the Orville. It's not perfect, but it's the only thing that's even remotely in the right ballpark. You know the world has gone completely crazy, when Seth McFarlane (of all people) is producing the Trekkiest show of the past 15 years.
Set Bookmark
James White
Tue, May 26, 2020, 1:34pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

Booming - I do agree that Trek is unique. But maybe let it "die" for awhile. It can always come back, especially when the CBSs and Disneys are no longer fucking with our cultural artifacts. In the meantime, give a number of those a try. Also, there's another BSG remake/reboot on the way, a new vision of Dune, a new Nolan film, and plenty of indi sci fi projects.

Ultimately, Roddenberry was a visionary. So we have the extraordinary creation of a visionary's universe, brought to life by some very talented showrunners and writers. Same with Tolkien's LOTR. Possibly the same w/ Dune if Villeneuve can get it right.

Maybe what we need is a new visionary - one that creates a very positive, rich and mentally engaging future. Doesn't need to be ST. With all the talent out there, I say just give it time.

Also, and root for Alex Garland to land new projects.
Set Bookmark
James White
Tue, May 26, 2020, 1:23pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

Booming, here is what's out there -

Black Mirror
The Expanse
Stranger Things
The OA
Dr. Who
Handmaid's Tale
The Man in the High Castle
Lost in Space
The Orville
The Rain
Altered Carbon
Mr. Robot

A few have ended recently. And there are others I obviously haven't mentioned. But I stand by what I said. That is a very strong list of sci fi shows.
Set Bookmark
James White
Tue, May 26, 2020, 12:56pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

Cody B - I suggest you do a little research before responding. I'll give you a mulligan.
Set Bookmark
Tue, May 26, 2020, 11:46am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S3: Meridian

For once they adequately explain away the “single village” thing. Their expedition crashed and the planet was uninhabited. Nuff said there but if they prefer their corporeal existence why don’t they just leave with the Defiant? This episode is a hot mess. The first of an otherwise stellar start to season 3. The Dax romance is Troi romance-level cringeworthy. And it’s almost always the fault of the guest actor and how he’s written - milquetoast boring and unremarkably handsome. Why would Dax fall for someone so ordinary? He’s worthy of a hookup at best. Gawd even Shakaar and Bareil are more interesting than this yawn inducing schmuck. Meanwhile the first major seed of the Odo/Kira romance is subtly planted, proving the writers are more adept at long form romance tales.
Set Bookmark
James White
Tue, May 26, 2020, 11:09am (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

It's ironic that in an age in which there is an over-abundance of compelling and thought-provoking science fiction, so many are lamenting the "death of Trek." It's only a "cult" if you live myopically.
Set Bookmark
James White
Tue, May 26, 2020, 11:05am (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

Cody B - do you think Mission Earth was "simple hack writing"?
Set Bookmark
Tue, May 26, 2020, 10:29am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S3: Civil Defense

“Attention Bajoran Workers” has become a meme. Which means this episode has stood up over the years as one of the more entertaining “hokey” efforts. I love how everything they do just trips another, worse, outcome. And I love scenery chewing if it’s done right and Alaimo and Robinson strike all the right comedic beats.
Next ►Page 1 of 929
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2020 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.